101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 Dr. B.K Singal …Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and Others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate with Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate Ms. Sana Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the charge-sheet dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-1), punishment order dated 21.02.1998 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-7), whereby, a cut of 10% on the pension of the petitioner was imposed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner had joined the services in the Department of Health, Government of Punjab in May,1970 as Medical Officer. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer in May, 1984 and was designated as Chief Medical Officer in the year 1990. The work and conduct of the petitioner always remained good and there was no complaint against him. Ultimately, the petitioner retired on 30.09.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. Before his retirement on 08.02.1994, a charge-sheet dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner by levelling two allegations i.e. (i) misuse of government vehicle and (ii) remaining absent from duty. The petitioner filed a reply (Annexure P-2) to the charge-sheet, however, finding the reply submitted by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, a regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Principal, Training Institute, Health and Family Planning, Kharar was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.10.1996 (Annexure P-3) to the competent authority. It was submitted by the Enquiry Officer that the charge No.1 was found to be proved against the petitioner, whereas, charge No.2 could not be proved against him. Ultimately, on the basis of the Enquiry Report (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.10.1996, with a proposed punishment of imposing of a cut of 10% on the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 29.11.1996 (Annexure P-5). Ultimately, vide order dated 21.02.1998 (Annexure P-6), the punishment of cut of 10% on the pension of the petitioner was imposed on the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal/review petition against the punishment order (Annexure P-6), however, the said appeal/review was dismissed on 16.10.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a memorial before the Governor of Punjab on 15.02.1999, but the petitioner had not received any communication regarding the fate of the said petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint moved by Dr. Varinder Singh Mohi, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Faridkot. However, Dr. Varinder Singh Mohi was inimical towards the petitioner and the charge-sheet was wrongly issued to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the charge No.1, relating to misuse of government vehicle was totally vague and as per Rule, 8.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, a charge must be definite and clear. However, in the present case, it is apparent from the charge-sheet that no specific reasons have been mentioned for framing of the charge against the petitioner and it lacks material particulars. He further contends that even the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner and the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The petitioner even moved an application for change of Enquiry Officer, but the prayer was wrongly declined. Even, no effective opportunity was granted to him to defend himself before the Trial Court and this had c