255-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16146-2021 Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Kuldeep Verma ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL.

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 certiorari for quashing of order dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the petitioner has been held guilty of charges levelled against him and it has been ordered to stop two annual increments with cumulative effect, order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby, it has been directed to impose cut of 10% permanently from the pension of the petitioner and order dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure P-6).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was working as an Additional Superintending Engineer in the Distribution Division, Fazilka, from 11.11.2013 to 14.05.2015 and retired on 31.11.2019. The petitioner has an unblemished career except for the charge sheet No.395/D-1-10735/E-1 dated 31.12.2015, issued in relation to the Distribution Division, Guru Har Sahai under Division, Jalalabad (West). The petitioner has submitted his reply but the punishing authority vide order dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P-3) imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect without affording any personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority, vide revised order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-4), without application of mind, imposed a punishment of 10% cut for perpetuity in pension of the petitioner.

3. He further submits that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not proportional to the misconduct alleged against him and his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.568 of 2013 titled as ‘Jagdish Mitter Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others’ decided on 19.05.2014, wherein, it has been held that 10% cut in perpetuity in pension is not sustainable. He further submits that the Punishing Authority in the absence of any statutory mandate cannot review its own order of punishment by imposing more stringent punishment which has not initially awarded.

4. Learned counsel for the repsondent-PSPCL submits that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures including issuance of the charge sheet. He further submits that an opportunity was also given to the petitioner to file reply and justified the imposition of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect as well as 10% cut for perpetuity in pension of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. Tritely, a High Court cannot sit in appeal with respect to the decision arrived in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings. As such, this Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findings rendered are justified by the material available on record, that the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the prescribed procedure as well as the principles of natural justice and that the penalty imposed is proportional to the misconduct. Interference is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the enquiry is conducted by an incompetent authority or in violation of prescribed procedure or principles of natural justice and grounds related to fundamental rationality of the decision, and not as a forum to re-examine the merits of the case.

Reliance in this regard may be made on the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Indian Oil Corpn.

Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Ar