Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Chand Kansal vs Board Of Directors Dhbvn Ltd Etc on 10 December, 2025
1
CWP-18004
18004-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212 CWP-18004
18004-2020
Date of Decision: December 10, 2025
Tara Chand Kansal
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Board of Directors, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another
...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull,
Dhull
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Fiza Arora, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P-7) P vide which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of deduction of 5% month pension and further to quash the order dated 10.04.2020 (Annexure P-9) P 9) vide which the statutory appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and be granted all consequential benefits.
1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 2 CWP-18004 18004-2020
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner was issued a show-
show-cause cause notice dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-5).
P 5). In response thereto, the petitioner sought certain documents essential for enabling him to file an effective and comprehens comprehensive ive reply.
However, the respondents neither supplied the requested documents nor have they disputed the fact that such documents were indeed sought by the petitioner. Despite the non-supply non supply of these documents, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the the punishment order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P-7), P 7), imposing a penalty of deduction of 5% from the petitioner's monthly pension for the remainder of his life. The passing of the impugned order without furnishing the relevant documents and without providin providing g the petitioner an adequate opportunity to file a detailed reply renders the action arbitrary, illegal, and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P P-7)
7) suffers from patent irregularities and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that the appellate authority, while dismissing the statutory appeal, did not consider or discuss the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected the appeal in a cryptic and mechanical mechanical manner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that one Sh. Mukesh Gupta, who is senior to the petitioner, was served with a charge charge-sheet sheet arising out of identical allegations. In his case, the appellate authority adopted a lenient approach and modified the penalty to stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment. However, no such parity or leniency was extended to the petitioner, resulting 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 3 CWP-18004 18004-2020 in discriminatory treatment. It is further argued that in the ab absence sence of any conclusive finding that the respondent(s)-Nigam respondent(s) Nigam suffered a financial loss, the punishment of 5% cut in pension is wholly unwarranted and impermissible in law. Learned senior counsel further submits that the case of petitioner is squarely covered covered by the judgment passed by this Court in LPA-
LPA
3410-2017, others,, decided on
2017, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 08.02.2023.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the procedure prescribed under the applicable Punishment and Appeal Rules was duly followed in its true letter and spirit. The summary of allegations, along with the relevant documents and list of wi witnesses, tnesses, was duly supplied to the petitioner prior to the passing of the punishment order. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner regarding non non-supply supply of documents is factually incorrect and has been taken merely to create a façade of violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded sufficient time and adequate opportunity to defend himself. It is further contended that the argument advanced by the petitioner, alleging that his statutory appeal was rejected without conside consideration ration of the grounds raised therein, is wholly misplaced. To substantiate this submission, learned Senior Counsel refers to Annexure R-1 R 1 and submits that the Board of Directors undertook detailed deliberations and, after considering all the issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal, arrived at a reasoned decision. With regard to the plea of parity with his senior, Sh. Mukesh Gupta, it is submitted that the competent authority had disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's report in the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 4 CWP-18004 18004-2020 said case, recorded its its dissent, and imposed punishment only with respect to one charge. Subsequently, in appeal, the penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect was modified to withholding of increment without cumulative effect. It is further submitted that whil whilee the petitioner was issued a show-cause cause notice for grave misconduct, Sh. Mukesh Gupta was issued a notice only for minor allegations. Therefore, the claim of parity in treatment is unfounded and untenable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and pursued the records with their able assistance.
6. It transpires that respondents have failed to place on record any conclusive finding or material to demonstrate that the alleged misconduct resulted in a quantifiable financial loss to the N Nigam.
igam. A pension cut is a severe penalty, impacting the financial security of a retired employee for life. In the absence of a finding of actual loss or wrongful gain, such a harsh punishment appears prima facie disproportionate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 held that the punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged.
7. The scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is settled law that this Court may may only exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the findings recorded in a disciplinary action are arbitrary, disproportionate, tainted with procedural illegality, or manifest prejudice. The Court must confine itself to ensu ensuring ring that the findings are justified by the material on record, the proceedings were 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 5 CWP-18004 18004-2020 conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, and the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct.
8. A Two-Judge Bench of the he Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. 602,, speaking through Justice B.S Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 Chauhan, made the following observations in this regard:
" 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC ((L&S) L&S) 1 :
(1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that onl onlyy in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds."
grounds.
9. Further reliance may be placed on a Three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court C in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72 while speaking through Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the following observation, "20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 6 CWP-18004 18004-2020 jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very llimited imited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance non observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate tto o the proved misconduct employee There is a catena of judgments of this Court which of an employee.
had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 :
AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521] , Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] ."
10. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a responsible officer and some lapse may hav havee occurred, it would not be appropriate to quash the entire proceedings. The ends of justice would be met if the punishment is modified to a proportionate one, which serves the purpose of censure without being unduly harsh.
11. Accordingly, the present writ it petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P P-7)
7) imposing a penalty of deduction of 5% from the monthly pension for the remainder of the petitioner's life is modified to the extent of imposing penalty of deduction of 5% from m the monthly pension for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of the original order (i.e., 29.11.2019) is substituted. The
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 ::: 7 CWP-18004 18004-2020 consequential order dated 10.04.2020 (Annexure P P-9)
9) is also set aside to this extent. Further, refund any excess amount amount if it has been recovered from the petitioner within a period of six weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE December 10, 10 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 15:50:40 :::