IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

268 CWP-8989-2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 VEER BHAN ….PETITIONER VERSUS HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR.

….RSPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. AG Haryana.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.05.2023 (P-9) by which Chief Administrator HSVP, Panchkula has imposed the penalty of 10% permanent cut in pension of the petitioner and further quashing of order dated 15.02.2024 (P-11) vide which statutory revision filed by the petitioner against the above-

said order has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned orders dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) and 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-11), which impose and uphold a penalty of

10% permanent cut in pension, are patently illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the very foundation of the impugned action is the two charge-sheets dated 24.09.2014 and 12.01.2017, which had previously formed the basis for the petitioner's compulsory retirement , an order that was stayed and effectively quashed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 7467 of 2017, being stigmatic. To punish the petitioner again on the identical set of charges constitutes a clear case of double jeopardy. Counsel further asserts that the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2014, pertaining to an RTI matter, stands completely demolished by the testimony of the prosecution's own witness, Sh. Ram Chander (Annexure P-12), who admitted that the information sought did not pertain to the petitioner. Regarding the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2017, it is submitted that the petitioner acted strictly in accordance with approved plans and procedures, a fact supported by the detailed sequence of events explained in his replies, which were not considered by the authorities. A grave legal infirmity pointed out is the revisional authority's reliance on the petitioner’s past conduct specifically, seven charge-sheets that never resulted in punishment and an incident from the year 2000 where the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a criminal court, without issuing any prior notice or providing an opportunity to explain, which is a blatant violation of the law settled in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. (2010) 4 SCT 600. Additionally, the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.03.2019, has been denied his pension and other retiral benefits, including annual increments stopped without any order since 2015, his due 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from 2006 and 2016 respectively, and promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer from the date his junior was promoted on 14.12.2017, solely on the basis of these untenable charges. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and all consequential benefits be released with interest.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is a due reference in the show cause notice as inferable from the paper book that past conduct of the petitioner that ‘the delinquent was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 in seven occasions and placed under suspension twice in his service career. He was also caught red handed on 16.09.2000 while taking gratification amounting to Rs.10,000/- while posted in the Public Dealing seat.’

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, adhered to principles of natural justice, and whether the findings are based on some eviden