IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 CWP-3754-2022 Date of Decision: February 26, 2026 Hukam Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.4 whereby punishment of deduction of 3% in monthly pension for four years has been imposed upon the petitioner and also for quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure P-10) whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 06.11.2020 has been dismissed. Further it is prayed that during the pendency of the present writ petition operation of impugned orders (Annexures P-8 and P-10) may be stayed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the premises of respondent No.6 were inspected by the officials of the respondent–Nigam, and during the course of checking, respondent No.6 was found indulging in theft of electricity. Consequently, a notice assessing loss to the tune of Rs.54,092/- was issued to respondent No.6. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.6 instituted a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner, who was posted as C.A., along with one Sh. Parmod Kumar, SDO, was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2016. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying all the allegations leveled against him. However, finding the reply to be unsatisfactory, respondent No.5 was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was held responsible for causing a loss of Rs. 45,112/- to the respondent–Nigam. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice; however, respondent No.4, without duly considering the reply, imposed a penalty of 3% cut in the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of four years, vide order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 06.11.2020 was never formally communicated to the petitioner; rather, it was merely conveyed that the impugned order had been issued with the approval of respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No.3, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is contended that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal were not duly considered, which clearly demonstrates that the appeal was decided in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Reference has also been made to Annexure R-2 appended with the affidavit dated 12.02.2026 to contend that the Superintending Engineer had passed an order materially different from the one communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-2316-2020 titled as Suresh Pal Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited and others, decided on 04.03.2025. Lastly, it is argued that the disciplinary proceedings themselves are vitiated in law, as the same were not concluded within a reasonable period. The punishment order came to be passed on 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8), i.e. after a lapse of nearly four years from the issuance of the charge-sheet and, significantly, after the petitioner had already superannuated on 28.02.2017. Such inordinate delay, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had retired prior to