205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 Husan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Jangra, Advocate and Mr. Raahat Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for the respondent.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by authorities whereby he has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of three increments with cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner joined Panjab University as Clerk in 1990 on regular basis. He was transferred to Chemical Engineering department and promoted as Jr. Assistant in 1995 in Certificate Section. He was further transferred to the Examination Branch. He worked for eight years in the Examination Branch and dealt with examination of different classes. In 2009, two students of 6^th Semester of Department of Law applied for change of centre from Chandigarh to Muktsar. Due to rush of work, petitioner could not verify documents of the aforesaid students. President, Panjab University Campus Student Council sent a complaint to Vice Chancellor alleging that Simranjit Singh Dhillon was allotted Chandigarh-II as examination centre for April’ 2009 but he appeared at Muktsar Centre. On enquiry, it was found that Navjot Saini-student of 6^th Semester of Department of Law had also appeared at Muktsar without permission. The Vice Chancellor set up an Inquiry Committee to look into the matter and fix the responsibility of the employee involved in it. The Committee suggested disciplinary action against certain officers. In view of Inquiry Report, Vice Chancellor referred the matter to a Committee comprising of three members which after deliberation recommended disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer found Superintendent, Assistant Registrar and petitioner guilty of alleged offence. Pursuant to Inquiry Report, the petitioner was served show cause notice dated 29.04.2011 to which he filed reply. A Committee constituted by syndicate proposed major punishment of stoppage of three- five increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner vide order dated 10.07.2014 was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. He preferred appeal which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.12.2014 passed by Vice Chancellor.

3. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that respondent has imposed major punishment without following procedure prescribed under Panjab University Calendar. Clause 5.1 of Part VI, Punjab University Calendar Volume III provides procedure for major penalty which has not been followed in the instant case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Said punishment falls under minor penalties, thus, there was no need to follow procedure prescribed for major penalties.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Clause 3 of Part VI, Panjab University Calendar Volume III prescribes penalties. Clause 5 prescribes procedure for major penalties. Clause 3 for ready reference is reproduced as below:-

“3. The following penalties may, for a good and sufficient reason as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee :

A. Minor Penalties (i) Censure.

(ii). Withholding of increments or promotion.

(iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders.

B. Major Penalties :

(iv) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale; or to a lower stage in a time-scale;

(v) Removal from service of the University which does not disqualify from future employment;

(vi) Dismissal from service of the University.”

7. As per Clause 3 (A)(ii), withholding of i