IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29669-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned inquiry report dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioner and impugned order No.608/D- 8907/Technical-1 dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) vide which orders have been issued to impose a cut of 10% in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years along with all consequential proceedings. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay the arrears of pension, which has been deducted on account of impugned orders, along with interest.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, employed as a Revenue Accountant, was charged with negligence vide charge-

sheet No.68/D-8907/T-1/S-6 dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 26.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) denying the charges. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and an inquiry report dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-3) was prepared vide which the petitioner was held indirectly responsible for causing loss to the respondent/Corporation. Subsequently, a non-speaking order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure P-4) was passed imposing a lifetime 10% cut in the pension of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and although the Sub-Divisional Officer recommended his innocence, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner thereafter approached this Court and vide order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed in CWP-2866-2018, this Court remanded back the matter for reconsideration of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner proportionality. Thereafter, the respondent/Corporation passed a fresh order dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) imposing a 10% cut in pension of the petitioner for a period of five years. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) but withdrew it with liberty to file afresh vide order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed in CWP-19698-2025. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in compliance of the order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by this Court in CWP-2866-2018, the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order by completely ignoring the findings recorded in the inquiry report.

Once the petitioner has been exonerated, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer, however, the Appellate Authority has merely modified the order of punishment by reducing 10% cut in pension of the petitioner for lifetime to 10% cut in pension for a period of five years. The allegations against the petitioner are not proved and even the allegations are far-fetched and the petitioner was not the person responsible for keeping supervision of the administrative lapses.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6 submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Appellate Authority has considered the issues raised by the petitioner and after giving a detailed reasons, a speaking order has been passed by disagreeing with the inquiry report and it has been held that the petitioner cannot be absolved of the lapses and misconduct which resulted into loss of Rs.4.56 lacs to the respondent/Corporation. She further contends that it was the sole responsibility of the petitioner, being Incharge of section, and as such, he has rightly been awarded punishment of 10% cut in pension for a period of five yea