246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.11.2025 Narinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhruv Walia, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. 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 mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the salary and pension of the petitioner from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) along with summary of charges available on record. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, another charge sheet was issued to other employees connected with the alleged misconduct on 06.06.2012. The disciplinary proceedings kept pending for indefinite period. The delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is not attributable to the petitioner. Ultimately, the punishment order was passed on 29.09.2016 (Annexure P-5)

more than six years after issuance of the charge sheet on 19.08.2010. As such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘P rem Nath Bali Vs. R egistrar, High Court of Delhi and another’ 2016(1) SCT 603. He further relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in ‘Surjit Singh Azad Vs. State of Punjab and others’ 1996(1) SLR 406 (P&H) and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Prem Nath Bali’s case (supra). The issue involved in the instant petition is identical to the one authoritatively decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh Azad’s case (supra) awarding the punishment after a delay of six years and making it effective from 30.06.2018 at the time of the retirement of the petitioner has caused great prejudice to the petitioner as delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and making the order effective from the date of retirement has effected the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 14.06.2019 (Annexure R-2), the punishment order dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) was modified and it was made effective from the date of retirement of the petitioner and also deduction of Rs.73,905/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was ordered. He further relies upon the order passed by this Court in CWP No.1398 of 2010 dated 24.05.2022 in which the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner not challenging the recovery of Rs.73,505/- imposed on 14.06.2019 (Annexure R-2). However, he is not able to controvert the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Surjit Singh Azad’s case (supra)

since the writ petitions are similar to the facts of the case.

4. He further relies upon the judgment of the Full Bench passed in ‘High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Vs. Jaswant Singh’ 2019(4) SCT 292, in which it was held that the judgment in ‘State of Punjab Vs. Major Singh Gill’ 1994(1) SCT 811 holding that the punishment imposed in departmental proceedings ‘would relate back to the period when the alleged offence/misconduct was committed or in any case when the same was detected’

does not lay down the correct law.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment is not applied on the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is clearly distinguishable and the judgment was passed in relation to entitlement of the promotion by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman’1991 (3) SCT 317 which held as under:-

‘...34. In this case, the respondent-employee's case was considered for promotion by the DPC in August 1982. However, the result was kept in a sealed co