IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Narinder Kaur ….Petitioner versus Guru Nanak Dev University and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the earlier order dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure P-3), whereby the punishment of dismissal was converted into removal, has been maintained.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as Library Attendant in respondent No.1-University by way of direct recruitment and she joined as such on 18.10.1986 and was confirmed on the said post on 07.06.1994. On 26.08.2008, she was directed by the Assistant Registrar to submit her original certificate of matriculation and Diploma in Library Science. However, the same were not submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, she was issued charge-sheet on 29.04.2010 on the following charges: -

“1. She (Narinder Kaur) has defrauded the university by submitting fake education certificate at the time of getting service in the university.

2. She has kept the university in the dark by not submitting the asked-for documents in time and has caused harm to the interests of the office.

3. She has shown ‘lesser’ date of birth and has defrauded the university by writing first division instead of third division in her matric examination.”

After following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14.02.2011. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP-12716 of 2011 (Narinder Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University and another), which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.11.2015, with the following observations: -

“Thus, her act of actually and consciously having filled in wrong particulars, no matter what stress she was under, is not condonable. Yet, with 22 years having gone by, with no other misdemeanor reported against her during that long period, in the opinion of this Court, dismissal from service, in such circumstances, may be too harsh a punishment; and whereas a Court should not normally interfere in the quantum of punishment awarded by a punishing authority, in the above given circumstances, of 22 years having elapsed since the petitioner was inducted into service, in my opinion, even though this writ petition must be dismissed, liberty should be granted to the petitioner, to represent before the competent authority, for grant of a lesser punishment than dismissal, in terms of the other punishments stipulated in clause 33 of the Statutes published in the University Calendar. Whether such lesser punishment is removal from service, thereby not debarring her chances of future employment, or some punishment even less than that, would obviously be upto the competent authority to decide.

Therefore, while dismissing the petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner, of making a representation for a lesser punishment, to the competent authority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such a representation is made, it would be decided within two months thereafter.

37. With the limited liberty given above, in view of the discussion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.”

In pursuance thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-2), which was duly considered by the competent authority and vide order dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure P-3), the punishment of dismissal from service was converted to removal from service, which does not disqualify the petitioner for future employment. It was further or