HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Rulda Ram ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 08.05.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 22.05.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 25.05.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Ms. Vanshika Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal, DAG Haryana ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the inquiry report dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure P4) as well as the order dated 08.02.1994 (Annexure P5) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service as also the appellate order dated 04.07.2018 (Annexure P6). He seeks a direct ion to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits and arrears.

(2). The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that the departmental inquiry culminating into the dismissal order dated 08.02.1994 stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, though he initially proceeded on sanctioned leave and thereafter sought extension through telegrams, he was neither informed regarding rejection thereof nor afforded fair opportunity during inquiry proceedings. It has further been contended that an earlier dismissal order had already been passed on 09.04.1993 and later withdrawn on technical grounds, thereby reflecting a pre-determined mindset of the respondents.

(3). On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner remained wilfully absent from duty after expiry of sanctioned leave and despite repeated notices directing him to join duties, he failed to do so. It has further been submitted that regular departmental inquiry was conducted after granting adequate opportunities to the petitioner.

(4). Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept reserved on 08.05.2026.

(5). The petitioner has specifically pleaded that on 16.09.1993, he appeared before the Inquiry Officer alongwith the clerk (Munshi) of his counsel and sought adjournment as the counsel himself could not appear. However, the request was declined and the witnesses were proceeded with on the same day. The petitioner has further alleged that the witnesses were cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer himself and thereafter, despite no formal closure of defence evidence and despite petitioner’s subsequent letter dated 19.09.1993 seeking intimation of next date, the inquiry report came to be submitted on 11.10.1993. (6). The aforesaid factual assertions have not been effectively controverted by the respondents. The record also does not disclose that after 16.09.1993, any meaningful opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence before submission of inquiry report. Rather, the material on record indicates that the inquiry, in substance, stood concluded on 16.09.1993 itself despite specific request for adjournment.

(7). In State of Uttar Pradesh versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Supreme Court held that even in departmental proceedings, reasonable opportunity to defend must be afforded and the Inquiry Officer must act fairly and independently. Similarly, in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, it was held that departmental proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature must conform to principles of natural justice.

(8). The petitioner’s grievance also gains support from the admitted fact that an earlier dismissal order had already been passed prior to holding regular inquiry and was later withdrawn on technical grounds. The sequence of events, therefore, creates a reasonable apprehension that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in undue haste.

(9). The appellate authority while rejecting the departmen