123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Sanjeev Anand ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate and Mr. Shivam J. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 24.11.2015; 06.09.2018; 17.07.2023 and 30.09.2024 (Annexures P-6, P-9, P-13 & P-16, respectively). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the consequential benefits with interest after deleting the impugned punishment from the service record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was served a charge sheet on 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) for alleged misconduct. He submitted a detailed reply on 27.08.2012 (Annexure P-2) denying the charges. He further submits that the superior officers submitted comments in favour of the petitioner clearly stating that the petitioner is disciplined and diligent official as discernible from Annexures P-3 to P-5. The charge sheets for major penalty were issued in terms of Regulation 7 of the UHBVN (HSEB) Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation, 1990 which contemplates an inquiry after issuance of a charge sheet. The drill of the prescribed procedure was not filed and without any inquiry or show cause notice, the punishing authority passed the impugned order of one annual increment without future effect on 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) by an authority which was not competent to award the punishment. The petitioner was not supplied the punishment order and he came to know only when he was denied permission. He filed his appeal and representation which was rejected on account of delay.

3. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.1604 of 2015 titled as ‘Suresh Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others’

decided on 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-17).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submits that the petitioner was not awarded a major penalty. Only minor penalty was imposed, as such, inquiry contemplated under Regulation 7 is not mandatory.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, it transpires that the impugned punishment was imposed without following the mandatory procedural safeguards including issuance of a show cause notice and conducting an inquiry and the authority imposing the penalty is also not competent. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra.

6. The legal position on this issue is well-settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT 915. The Full Bench, after analyzing Rules 7 and 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, which are pari materia to the UHBVN Regulations, held:

“27. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view expressed by the Division Benches of this Court in Samay Singh's case and Puran Chand Sharma's case, and also in the Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in I.D. Gupta's case, and that of the Calcutta High Court in M.M. Dutta's case (cited supra), in so far as they hold that even in a case where the chargesheet is issued for imposing a major penalty, the disciplinary authority can still, without holding an enquiry under the relevant Rule for imposing a major penalty, impose a minor penalty. To that extent, we hold that they are not good law. We also hold that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shadi Lal's case is not applicable to the facts of the cases our hand.

28. We hold that once the cha