106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate and Ms. Swati, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release and pay the salary to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. October, 2023. Further, for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties, to consider the petitioner on duty w.e.f. 14.12.2023 and to grant & sanction medical leave of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.10.2023 to 13.12.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was inducted as a Mali in the year 1987 and was promoted as a Driver on regular basis on 26.03.2015. Due to serious medical conditions and subsequent fever/infection, the petitioner remained under treatment and was advised medical leave by PGIMER, Chandigarh. On 14.12.2023, the petitioner submitted a written request with original medical records seeking to join duty and for sanction of medical leave for the period starting from 19.10.2023 to 13.12.2023 as discernible from Annexure P-1. A charge sheet was served on 29.02.2024 for unauthorized absence w.e.f. 19.10.2023. A regular inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 08.05.2025 finding no suspicion regarding the petitioner’s medical record. Thereafter, respondent No.2 awarded the petitioner a minor punishment of Censure as discernible from Annexure P-3. The petitioner made repeated representations seeking to join duty but the same were remained unheeded. He has also personally appeared pursuant to communication dated 30.10.2025.

3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-authority is not in a position to controvert the fact that the right kidney of the petitioner was removed and he remained under treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh. The original record of the petitioner was examined by the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was only awarded minor punishment of censure. She further submits that the petitioner can join the duty today itself.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was advised medical leave for the period of 19.10.2023 to 13.12.2023 by PGIMER, Chandigarh and he has sought medical leave on 14.12.2023 as discernible from Annexure P-1. Instead of taking any decision on the application submitted by the petitioner, straight-way, a charge sheet was served on 29.02.2024. There is no denial to the fact that the charge sheet was served without issuance of any show cause notice or placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 19.10.2023. A regular inquiry was conducted in which the veracity of the medical record submitted by the petitioner was examined and the departmental inquiry resulted into issuance of the minor punishment of censure. As such, there is no embargo in granting the medical leave to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is ready and willing to join his duty after availing the medical leave as per the advise of PGIMER, Chandigarh. However, the respondent-authority has not allowed the petitioner to join in spite of a written representations followed by a legal notice.

5. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent-authority to permit the petitioner to join his duty. The respondent-authority has not produced any adverse remarks against the petitioner except an order of censure (Annexure P-3). As such, the petitioner is en