Veer Bhan v. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and Another

IN T

VEER BHAN HARYANA S CORAM: HO

Present: M

M

M

fo

M

M

fo

HARPREET

1.

T the Constitut order dated Panchkula ha of the petition vide which st said order ha

2.

L the impugn

15.02.2024 (

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

CW

Da

N VERSUS

SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKAR

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARP Mr. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate wi Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate a Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Adv or the petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate or the respondents. SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has b tion of India in the nature o

10.05.2023 (P-9) by which as imposed the penalty of 10 ner and further quashing of o tatutory revision filed by the as been dismissed. earned counsel for the petiti ed orders dated 10.05.2 (Annexure P-11), which impo JAB AND HARYANA RH WP-8989-2024 ate of Decision: 09.09.2025 ….PETITIONER RAN & ANR. ….RSPONDENTS PREET SINGH BRAR ith and vocate . AG Haryana. been filed under Article 226 of of certiorari for quashing the Chief Administrator HSVP, 0% permanent cut in pension rder dated 15.02.2024 (P-11) petitioner against the above-ioner inter alia contends that 023 (Annexure P-9) and ose and uphold a penalty of

-

R

S

f e

n ) - t d f 10% perman violative of th foundation o

24.09.2014 a the petitioner effectively qu being stigma charges cons asserts that matter, stan prosecution's admitted tha Regarding th petitioner ac procedures, explained in A grave lega on the petitio never resulte where the p without issuin which is a bla State of U.P superannuate retiral benefit

nent cut in pension, are pa he principles of natural justic of the impugned action is th and 12.01.2017, which had pr r's compulsory retirement , a uashed by this Hon'ble Court atic. To punish the petitioner stitutes a clear case of doub the charge-sheet dated 24.0 nds completely demolished s own witness, Sh. Ram Cha t the information sought did he charge-sheet dated 12.01. cted strictly in accordance a fact supported by the d his replies, which were not c al infirmity pointed out is the oner's past conduct specifica ed in punishment and an in petitioner was honourably ac ng any prior notice or providi atant violation of the law settl P. (2010) 4 SCT 600. Add ed on 31.03.2019, has been d ts, including annual incremen atently illegal, arbitrary, and ce. It is argued that the very he two charge-sheets dated reviously formed the basis for an order that was stayed and t in CWP No. 7467 of 2017, again on the identical set of ble jeopardy. Counsel further

09.2014, pertaining to an RTI by the testimony of the ander (Annexure P-12), who not pertain to the petitioner. 2017, it is submitted that the with approved plans and etailed sequence of events considered by the authorities. revisional authority's reliance lly, seven charge-sheets that ncident from the year 2000 cquitted by a criminal court, ng an opportunity to explain, led in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. itionally, the petitioner, who denied his pension and other nts stopped without any order

d y d r d , f r I e o . e d s . e t ,

. o r r since 2015, respectively, from the dat basis of the impugned o released with

3.

P submits that inferable from 'the delinqu occasions an was also cau amounting to

4.

I perused the r

5.

T narrow and c by a compete to principles some eviden authority to placed on a vs. P. Guna Kurian Josep

his due 2nd and 3rd ACP b and promotion to the post te his junior was promoted o se untenable charges. It is rders be quashed and all h interest. Per contra, learned counsel a there is a due reference in m the paper book that past c uent was charge-sheeted nd placed under suspension tw ught red handed on 16.09.20 o Rs.10,000/- while posted in t have heard the learned c record with their able assistan The scope of judicial review confined to examining whethe ent authority, followed the pr of natural justice, and wheth ce or are perverse. The Cou re-appreciate evidence. Reli Two Judge Bench of the Su asekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 61 ph, made the following observ benefits from 2006 and 2016 t of Sub-Divisional Engineer on 14.12.2017, solely on the , therefore, prayed that the consequential benefits be ppearing for the respondents n the show cause notice as conduct of the petitioner that under Rule 7 in seven wice in his service career. He 000 while taking gratification the Public Dealing seat.' counsel for the parties and nce. w in disciplinary matters is er the inquiry was conducted rescribed procedure, adhered her the findings are based on rt cannot act as an appellate ance in this regard may be preme Court Union of India 10 speaking through Justice vations in this regard:

r e e e s s t n e n d s d d n e e a e "12. De not tha disciplin before by the Central the Hig first ap Article ventur can onl whethe (a (b p (c c (d a e (e in (f a e (g th (h in

(i)

¶13Und Court s

(i) (i s (i (i (v fi (v b (v s c

Relianc rendered in B

espite the well-settled positio t the High Court has acted as nary proceedings, reapprec the enquiry officer. The findin disciplinary authority and l Administrative Tribunal. In gh Court is not and canno ppeal. The High Court, in ex es 226/227 of the Constit re into reappreciation of th ly see er: a) the enquiry is held by a com b) the enquiry is held ac prescribed in that behalf; c) there is violation of the pr onducting the proceedings; d) the authorities have disabl a fair conclusion by some con evidence and merits of the cas e) the authorities have a nfluenced by irrelevant or extr f) the conclusion, on the ve arbitrary and capricious that ever have arrived at such conc g) the disciplinary authority ha he admissible and material ev h) the disciplinary authority nadmissible evidence which in

i) the finding of fact is based o der Articles 226/227 of the Co shall not:

i) reappreciate the evidence;

ii) interfere with the conclusio ame has been conducted in a

iii) go into the adequacy of the

iv) go into the reliability of the

v) interfere, if there be som indings can be based.

vi) correct the error of fact ho be;

vii) go into the proportional hocks its onscience."

ce in this regard may also B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union on, it is painfully disturbing to s an appellate authority in the ciating even the evidence ng on Charge I was accepted was also endorsed by the n disciplinary proceedings, ot act as a second court of xercise of its powers under tution of India, shall not e evidence. The High Court mpetent authority; ccording to the procedure rinciples of natural justice in led themselves from reaching siderations extraneous to the se; allowed themselves to be raneous considerations; very face of it, is so wholly no reasonable person could clusion; ad erroneously failed to admit vidence; y had erroneously admitted nfluenced the finding; on no evidence. onstitution of India, the High ns in the enquiry, in case the accordance with law; e evidence; evidence; me legal evidence on which wever grave it may appear to lity of punishment unless it

(emphasis added) be made to the judgments of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749

o e e d e , f r t t e n g e e y d t d e h o t s and Indian O

72.

6.

F Court in S.R. through Justi regard: " 29. In SCC (C observa India, ( : AIR 1 the pun warran Thakur SCC (L be take judicial conside that o perver courts ground

¶30The pervers exclud irreleva said to or if th from th basis o no reas perver accepta would n interfer [(1984) Kuldee SCC (L Rao v. 372 : A SCC 18

¶31He irregul

Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Ashok K Furthermore, a two-Judge Be . Tewari vs. Union of India, ice B.S Chauhan, made the f n Union of India v. R.K. Sharm Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 305 ations made in Ranjit Thaku

(1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC 987 SC 2386] observing that nishment was harsh or strikin t interference. However, the r [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of Ind L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : A en to mean that a court can, w l review, interfere with the pu ers the punishment to be di only in extreme cases, wh rsity or irrationality, there c should not interfere m ds. e findings of fact recorded b se if the findings have been ding relevant material or by ant/inadmissible material. o be perverse if it is "agains he finding so outrageously he vice of irrationality. If a d of no evidence or thorough sonable person would act u rse. But if there is some e able and which could be re not be treated as perverse a red with. (Vide Rajinder Ku ) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S p Singh v. Commr. of Polic L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 67 State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SC AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu 89 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] ence, where there is evide larity or illegality, interferen Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC nch of the Hon'ble Supreme

(2013) 6 SCC 602, speaking following observations in this ma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 53] , this Court explained the ur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of C (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 t if the charge was ridiculous, ngly disproportionate it would e said observations in Ranjit dia, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to while exercising the power of unishment merely because it disproportionate. It was held which on their face, show ould be judicial review and merely on compassionate by a court can be held to be n arrived at by ignoring or y taking into consideration The finding may also be st the weight of evidence", y defies logic as to suffer decision is arrived at on the hly unreliable evidence and upon it, the order would be vidence on record which is relied upon, the conclusions and the findings would not be umar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805] , ce [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 77] , Gamini Bala Koteswara CC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) u v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 ] .) ence of malpractice, gross nce is permissible."

C e g s e f

d t o f t d w d e e r n e , r e d e s s e .

a ) s

In terms of interference capricious, o illegality". A relevant mate

7.

B essential to r judicial proce

8.

A Mukherjee v Justice S.C A "40. Fo in cas express author require

Further Assistant Co Brothers, (2 Kumar obser "12. At consist essenti approa is entitl Reason could l to the hampe

S.R. Tewari vs. Union of is warranted where the d or perverse" or where the finding is perverse if it is bas erial, or considers irrelevant m Before applying the above p reaffirm a fundamental princi ess "the requirement of a reas A constitutional Bench of the v. Union of India, (1990) 4 Agrawal made the following ob or the reasons aforesaid, it m es where the requirement sly or by necessary impl rity exercising judicial or ed to record the reasons for

r a Two Judge bench of the ommissioner, Commercial 2010) 4 SCC 785 speaking rved that, the cost of repetition, we ma tently taken the view that ial feature of dispensation ches the Court with any griev led to know the reasons for gr ns are the soul of orders. lead to dual infirmities; firs e affected party and sec er the proper administr (emphasis added) f India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, ecision is "wholly arbitrary, re is a "manifest error or sed on no evidence, ignores material. principles to the facts, it is ple of our judicial and quasi-soned order". Hon'ble Apex Court in S.N. SCC 594 speaking through bservation, ust be concluded that except has been dispensed with lication, an administrative quasi-judicial functions is r its decision."

(emphasis added) e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tax Dept. vs. M/s Shukla & g through Justice Swatanter ay notice, that this Court has recording of reasons is an of justice. A litigant who vance in accordance with law rant or rejection of his prayer. Non-recording of reasons stly, it may cause prejudice condly, more particularly, ration of justice. These

r s s - . h t h e s n & r s n o w

s e , e princip execut fact, pronou prejud that litig Court i taking Court i refer to Courts

9.

T not only don recorded re Mukherjee (s against arbitr vigour to judi (supra), this orders" and infirmities; fir secondly, m justice." Furt SCC 519, the heartbeat of An order with the rule of law

10.

It Sh. Ram C information s

ples are not only applica tive actions, but they apply with a greater degree uncements. A judgment dice to the person against w gant is unable to know the gr in rejecting his claim and also adequate and appropriate in the event of challenge to t o certain judgments of this C which have taken this view." The conscience of the law is ne but is also seen to be d asons. As held by the C (supra), the requirement to re rary exercise of power. This icial and quasi-judicial orders s Court emphatically held th that "non-recording of re rstly, it may cause prejudice more particularly, hamper th ther, in Raj Kishore Jha vs e Apex Court crystallized the every conclusion. Without th hout reasons is anathema to w. t transpires that the statemen Chander (P-12), is unequiv sought under the RTI applic able to administrative or ly with equal force and, in of precision to judicial without reasons causes whom it is pronounced, as round which weighed with the o causes impediments in his grounds before the higher that judgment. Now, we may Court as well as of the High

(emphasis added) satisfied only when justice is done through the medium of Constitution Bench in S.N. ecord reasons is a vital check principle applies with greater s. In M/s Shukla & Brothers hat "reasons are the soul of easons could lead to dual e to the affected party and he proper administration of s. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 principle thus: "Reason is the e same, it becomes lifeless." a system of justice based on nt of the prosecution witness, vocal. He admits that the cation did not pertain to the

r n l s s e s r y h s f . k r s f l d f e " n , e e petitioner. A evidence can orders, to the are vitiated b the allegation the petitione

09.05.2023 a undisputed f possession t has filed a r representatio Town Planne communicate working day. the allottee petitioner wa HUDA, Hisar allottee requ petitioner has effective orde and Country no role eithe any represen this regard

A charge that is not proven nnot form the basis for any e extent they rely on this ch by perversity as they are bas n in the charge-sheet dated 1 r has explained in the reply and also in the revision pet factual position that Sh. M to the allottee on 14.10.2004 representation that he has b on was examined by the Es er, Hisar and on 24.08.2007 ed to the allottee that he c The petitioner was posted a has never approached the as transferred on 17.01.20 r to Sirsa Division. It was on uested for taking over the s handed over the possessio er passed by the Chief Admin Planning, Panchkula. As su er in delaying or handing ove ntation made by the allottee. T by the petitioner has neith n by the department's own punishment. The impugned harge, are unsustainable and sed on no evidence. Further,

12.01.2017, is not proved and to show cause notice dated tition on the strength of the Mange Ram has given the 4 and thereafter, the allottee been given lesser area. This state Officer and the District vide letter No.28430, it was can take possession on any at Hisar upto 17.01.2008 and e petitioner. Thereafter, the 08 from the Estate Office, nly in the year 2014 that the e physical possession. The on to the allottee in terms of nistrator, Department of Town ch, the petitioner has played r the possession or rejecting The specific grounds taken in er been considered by the

n d d

d d e e e s t s y d e , e e f n d g n e punishing au has been giv

11.

F explicitly reli seven charg incident from criminal cour

12.

F the Hon'bel

(2010) 10 S made the foll "36. In conclus I. s II fo II s p d IV th th V o V s V s a o IX a o o

thority nor by the revisional a ven to discard this admitted fac Further, the revisional author ed upon the petitioner's pa ge-sheets (which did not res m 2000 where the petitione rt. This approach is per incuria Further reliance may be place Apex Court in Mohd. Yunu SCC 539, which speaking th lowing observations, view of the above, we reac sions :- Absence of appellant from d

25.minutes was bonafide a tatutory rules. I. Imposition of punishment of or the said absence was unwa II. Protest by the appellant a aid punishment could not punishment of the.appellant fo days. V. Disobedience of the enhan his case, warrant initiation of he.Commandant concerned a V. The Commandant could no of his own cause. VI. The Commandant cou ubordinate as the inquiry offic VII. The Commandant could h uperior officer for appropria 991 VIII. Once the Command a witness himself in the enq order of punishment. X. The Authority who initiated against the appellant became officer appointed by him, who office and also accepted the e authority and no such reasons ctual position. rity, in its order (P-11), has ast service record, including sult in punishment) and an er was later acquitted by a am . ed on a Two Judge Bench of us Khan vs. State of U.P., hough Justice B.S Chouhan ch the following inescapable duty as Guard Commander for and permissible under the f punishment drill for 10 days arranted. against the imposition of the t warrant enhancement of or confinement in cell for ten nced punishment could not, in f disciplinary proceedings by against the appellant. ot himself become the Judge uld not appoint his own cer. ave referred the matter to his ate action in terms of Rules dant concerned appeared as quiry, he could not pass the d the disciplinary proceedings a witness before the inquiry o is subordinate to him in his enquiry report and passed the

s s g n a f , n e r e s e f n n y e n s s s e s y s e o v X c p w X o w in X b p d X b n c ta

13.

A Khan (supr authority wa imposing a p thereof. The where the surreptitiousl never put to would be use opportunity v acquittal is a

14.

T analysis of h rationally co penalty. It m

order of punishment Thus, the vitiated. X. The Appellate Authority c conduct of the appellant punishment passed by t without bringing it to the not XI. As the punishment order h of the.statutory rules and the p well, it is.rendered null an nexecutable. XII. Past conduct of an emp be taken into.account to su punishment without bringin delinquent employee. XIII. The error of violating the by the Disciplinary Authority nature that under no circ conduct of the appellant, e aken into consideration." As settled by the Hon'ble A ra) it is clear and unequivo ants to consider the past c punishment, the delinquent is past conduct, which did not employee was acquitted, y to justify a subsequent pun notice that his past, unprov ed against him in the presen vitiates the order. Reliance on classic case of considering ir The revisional authority's or how these past events, even nnect to the present charg merely parrots a conclusion s e order of punishment stood could not consider the past to justify the order of the disciplinary authority tice of the appellant. had been passed in violation principles of natural justice as d void. Thus, it remained ployee should not generally ubstantiate the quantum of ng it to the notice of the e principles of natural justice has been of such a grave cumstance can the past even if not satisfactory, be (emphasis added) pex Court in Mohd. Yunus ocal that if the disciplinary conduct of an employee in s entitled to a specific notice t result in any punishment or , cannot be relied upon nishment. The petitioner was ven charges and an acquittal t proceedings. This denial of unproven allegations and an rrelevant material. rder does not contain any n if assumed to be relevant, ges or justify the enhanced solely on the basis of order

d t f y n s d y f e e e t e

s y n e r n s l f n y , d r passed by th stamp" reaso in Union of Court held th it is a gene conclusion." mandatory re between the in the impu revisional Au petitioner. T grounds.

15.

T silent on dea the petitioner deal with the arbitrary and Brothers (su

16.

In the findings permanent p irrelevant m principles of therefore, wh and are unre

he punishing authority.This is oning that was condemned by India vs. Mohan Lal Capo hat "the most that could be sa ral description of the proce Such an "apology for rea equirement of a reasoned o material and the conclusion. gned order either by the uthority dealing with the e he impugned order (P-11) The revisional authority's ord aling with the specific and co r in his reply and revision pet e contentions raised. Failure d in violation of the principles upra). n light of the above, this Cou against the petitioner, lead pension cut, are based on aterial. The process is viti natural justice and the impug holly arbitrary, capricious, suff asoned orders in the eyes of precisely the kind of "rubber-y the Hon'ble Supreme Court oor, (1974) 2 SCC 836. The aid for the stock reason is that ess adopted in arriving at a sons" does not satisfy the order. Reasons are the links Not even a whisper is made Punishing Authority or the explanation provided by the is rendered void on these der (P-11) is conspicuously ogent explanations offered by tition. A reasoned order must e to do so renders the order s laid down in M/s Shukla & urt is constrained to hold that ing to the punishment of a a mix of no evidence and ated by a violation of the gned orders (P-9 & P-11) are, fer from the vice of perversity, law.

- t e t a e s e e e e y y t r & t a d e

17.

F petition is allo

18.

T

10.05.2023 ( Panchkula, a 11) passed b Haryana, are

19.

R consequentia benefits, noti months from

09.09.2025 NainaRajput

W W

For the reasons recorded he owed. The impugned order Annexure P-9) passed by the and the impugned order date by the Addl. Chief Secretary e hereby quashed and set asid Respondent No.1 is dire al benefits to the petitioner onal promotion and admissib the date of receipt of certified

ereinabove, the present writ . EA-1-2023/87140 dated e Chief Administrator, HSVP, ed 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-y, Town & Country Planning, de. cted to release all the along with the pensionary ble ACP within a period of two d copy of this order. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE :

t d , - , e y o )