IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

262 CWP-11984-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Mansi, Advocate for Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

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 charge-sheet No.1572 dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) and charge sheet No.1575 dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) and impugned order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) to the extent whereby the retiral dues amount of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 9,03,598/- has been withheld including further consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned charge-sheets. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent No.2 to release the retiral dues amount of Rs. 9,03,598/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 31.05.2024, till its realization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Hardeep Singh vs State of Haryana and another, passed in CWP-9325-2024 decided on 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-9) as well as the judgment of this Court in CWP-25369-2018, titled as Shaminder Singh vs The Punjab Agro Industries Corporation and another, decided on 30.09.2019 along with other bunch of petitions (Annexure P-5). He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the date of his retirement. The foundational charge against the petitioner is regarding moisture gain although, the petitioner was working as a Security Guard. Further, there is no Rule which grants power to the respondents to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against any retired employee especially when the post on which the petitioner was working is a non-pensionable post. The respondent/Corporation has tried to justify the issuance of charge-sheets by relying upon Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, Chapter I, Volume II. Further, this Court in Shaminder Singh’s case (supra) and Hardeep Singh’s case (supra), has considered the identical controversy and has come to the conclusion that Rule 2.2(b) ibid is not applicable to the employees who are working on non-pensionary establishment.

Further this Court in CWP-26704-2015, titled as Ram Sawrup vs State of Haryana and others, CWP-6960-2016, titled as Ram Dhari vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-6), has conclusively held that an employee cannot be penalised and held financially liable for storage related weight or moisture losses in the absence of specific statutory rules formulated in this regard. Moreover, the applicable Rules governing the services of the petitioner has no provision for awarding punishment on account of less storage gain. As such, the fundamental charge against the petitioner is not based upon any statutory mandate and in an identical circumstances, the charge- sheets issued to a similarly situated employees of the petitioner, have been set-aside by this Court in CWP-18655-2022, titled as Laxmi Chand vs Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another decided on 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-7), CWP-26606-2021, titled as Jawahar Singh vs State of Haryana and others, CWP-4345-2022 titled as Jasbir Singh vs State of Haryana and others and CWP-6409- 2022, titled as Jawahar Singh vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-8).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no norms fixed for showing less gain in the moisture content and this issue already stands settled in CWP