IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 22, 2025 Krishan Kumar ……..Appellant Vs Home Secretary Haryana and others …………Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present : Appellant in person.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana.

****

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

1. The present Le*ers Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1804-2025, whereby the writ pe55on filed by the Appellant, seeking quashing of the le*ers dated 07.03.2024 & 02.04.2024 recommending ini5a5on of departmental proceedings, as well as le*er/order dated 02.04.2024 direc5ng ini5a5on of such departmental enquiry, has been disposed off.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the essen5al facts required to be no5ced are that vide le*er dated 07.03.2024, respondent No.8 recommended ini5a5on of departmental enquiry against the appellant on the allega5ons of gross negligence in not handing back the case file of FIR No.299 dated 30.05.2019 registered at Police Sta5on Sohna, Gurugram. It was alleged that the appellant was handed over the case file during his pos5ng at the Police Sta5on in ques5on from 08.10.2022 to 14.02.2023, for the purpose of inves5ga5on. A@er his transfer to Police Sta5on Sector-65, he was asked several 5mes to hand over the charge of the file in ques5on and other files, however, he refused to do the needful. Other allega5ons regarding not comple5ng the file with the necessary documents etc., were also made.

3. A@er the receipt of the said le*er, respondent No. 5 vide le*er dated 02.04.2024 sought permission for ini5a5on of departmental enquiry from respondent No. 4. A@er examining the allega5ons against the appellant, respondent no. 4 was prima facie of the view that the departmental enquiry was required to be ini5ated against the appellant, and order dated 02.04.2024 was passed to that effect. Admi*edly, the appellant par5cipated in the enquiry proceedings and his statement was recorded on 27.04.2024 and as per the appellant, all the original documents which were alleged to be missing, were produced by him. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the appellant filed CWP No. 1804 of 2025, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdic5on of this Court under Ar5cle 226 of the Cons5tu5on of India, challenging the ini5a5on of the departmental ac5on against him vide impugned le*ers and order dated 02.04.2024.

4. It was inter-alia alleged in the pe55on that the en5re ac5on is vi5ated since the same is actuated in malice and the appellant was being vic5mized for honestly inves5ga5ng the case involving influen5al people. It was also alleged that the departmental enquiry had been ini5ated with the intent to withhold the re5ral benefits of the appellant, who re5ed on 30.04.2024 and was facing immense financial hardship on account the arbitrary ac5on of the authori5es. By referring to judicial precedents wherein it was held that departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, it was stated that despite the re5rement of the appellant, the departmental proceedings were kept pending and no decision was being taken by respondent No.4.

5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the pe55on filed by the appellant, vide order dated 23.01.2025, which is reproduced as under:-

“1. The pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner through instant pe(cid:18)(cid:18)on under Ar(cid:18)cles 226/227 of the Cons(cid:18)tu(cid:18)on of India is seeking se ng aside of departmental inquiry le#er dated

07.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings.

2. On being pointed out by this Court that departmental proceedings are s(cid:18)ll pending and no final order has been passed, Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate submits that pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner has already re(cid:18)red, thus, pending departmental proceedings are causing irreparable loss and his grievance at this stage would be redressed, if the respondents are directed to complete departmental pr