134+136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CWP-32022-2025 Date of decision: 30.10.2025 Neelam Rani ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

2) CWP-31966-2025 Harmaljit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-32022-2025.

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned office order bearing endorsement No.PLWB/Estt./2023-24/257-258 dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated under the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was implicated in FIR No.85 dated 28.03.2019, registered under Section 409 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, but was later not charge-sheeted and was placed in Column No.2 of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He argues that the departmental inquiry was conducted in a hurried manner, without sufficient evidence, and that the findings are based on no evidence, surmises, and conjectures. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the inquiry officer acted with bias. The petitioner was wrongly and hastily implicated in a criminal case (FIR No. 85) and, after a thorough investigation, was exonerated by the investigating agency itself. Despite this vindication in the criminal sphere, the department proceeded with a parallel departmental inquiry that the petitioner characterizes as a "pseudo inquiry" conducted in haste "to save face." Since the investigative agency of the state (the police), after a detailed probe, found no evidence of her involvement in the misconduct, the department cannot logically or legally sustain a finding of guilt on charges like connivance and neglect leading to loss that are derivative of that very same misconduct. To hold her guilty departmentally after a clean chit in the criminal case is, in her view, "putting the cart before the horse" and is perverse, irrational, and amounts to an act of victimization.

4. Per contra Learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, given an opportunity to reply, and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report, based on evidence, held the petitioner guilty of charges related to neglect of duties, failure to maintain records, and bringing disrepute to the Board.

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

6. A bare perusal of the paper book reveals that the department followed the procedure established under law to conduct the proceedings and come to the conclusion. Further it transpires that the petitioner’s premise is that she has been given clean chit in the criminal manner and as such she should get exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings as well.

7. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd 2005 (7) SCC 764 while speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker made the following observations, “12. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and