IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Sarbjit Kaur …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-5), whereby the voluntary retirement from service granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-1), has been revoked; charge-sheet dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2; enquiry report dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-19) conducted by respondent No.4; punishment order dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure P-21) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be removed from the services and order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure P-22) passed by respondent No.5, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 29.03.2019 has been dismissed. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to act upon the order dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from services has been accepted and to grant the petitioner all pensionary benefits along with statutory interest.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the husband of the petitioner namely Kulwinder Singh was shot dead by the terrorists in the month of December, 1990 and the respondent- department appointed the petitioner as a Clerk on compassionate ground in the month of April, 1993. In the year 2005, the petitioner got remarried with one Sukhdeep Singh, who was working in Germany. In the year 2013, the husband of the petitioner fell seriously ill and the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.03.2013 seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 03.06.2013 in order to take care of her husband. The said request was accepted by respondent No.2, vide order dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-1). However, the said order was subsequently revoked by respondent No.2, vide order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-5), on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for premature retirement as per the Premature Retirement Rules, 1975 as she had neither completed 20 years of regular service nor attained the age of 50 years. Consequently, the petitioner continued in service. Thereafter, due to some domestic reason, the petitioner had applied one month leave with pay w.e.f. 30.03.2015 to 30.04.2015, which was approved by respondent No.3, vide order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure P-6). Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-7) seeking extension of leave for six months w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to 31.10.2015, which was rejected by respondent No.3, vide letter dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure P-8), on the ground that the petitioner was having only 14 days earned leave in her account and she was directed to join the duty immediately, failing which she would be deemed to be absent from duty and the appropriate departmental action would be taken against her. Since due to critical condition of her husband, the petitioner had to go abroad, the letter dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure P-8) remained undelivered with the remarks ‘left India’ ‘returned to sender’. The department again sent a letter dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-9) to the petitioner, however, the same was also returned with the same remarks. By relying upon the aforesaid letters and taking into consideration that the petitioner was absent from duty w.e.f. 01.05.2015, respondent No.3, vide letter dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) addressed to respondent No.2, recommended departmental action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said letter, chargesheet dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) was issued to the