Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20156-CWP-2023 & -1- 2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 CM-20156-CWP-2023 &
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
Date of Decision :-04.12.2023
Baljinder Singh Mann ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-20156-CWP-2023
The present application has been filed for condonation of delay
of 489 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the main writ
petition.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 489
days in filing the application seeking restoration of the main writ petition is
condoned.
CM-20158-CWP-2023
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20156-CWP-2023 & -2- 2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated
17.05.2022 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated
17.05.2022 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is
ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for
hearing today itself.
CWP-18586-2017
1. In the present petition challenge is to order dated 26/27.04.2017
(Annexure P/6) by which, punishment of 5% cut in the pension of the
petitioner for life has been imposed upon the petitioner.
2. As per the averments, the petitioner while in service was issued
a charge sheet dated 10.12.2010 raising certain allegations with regard to
counter signing certain information by him, which information was later on
found to be forged.
3. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation and ultimately in the disciplinary proceedings pending
against him, the respondents have passed order dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure
P/6) by which, punishment of 5% cut in pension of the petitioner for life was
imposed upon him. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
allegation against the petitioner is with regard to the negligence and there is
no allegation of any misappropriation or causing loss to the State exchequer.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20156-CWP-2023 & -3- 2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even while
interpreting same proposition of law under which punishment has been
imposed upon the petitioner, Division Bench of this Court in CWP-568-
2013 tilted as Jagdish Mitter vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and
others decided on 19.05.2014 has held that cut in pension for life under Rule
2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules is disproportionate to
the allegatiosn alleged and the said punishment was modified by the
Division Bench of this Court with the observation that cut in pension will be
for a specific period and not for life hence, in the present petition, the claim
of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in Jagdish Mitter (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that as per the settled principle of law, in case the punishment is being
changed and is found to be disproportionate to the charges alleged, the Court
has no power to amend the punishment but to remand the case back to the
authority concerned to pass a fresh appropriate order with regard to the
imposing of punishment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the
allegations against the petitioner have been proved, even if, there is no
financial loss caused to the State exchequer, punishment of cut in pension
for life can be imposed upon the petitioner, which has rightly been imposed
by the respondents.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20156-CWP-2023 & -4- 2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
8. It is a conceded position that the punishment has been imposed
upon the petitioner under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, which rule was also the subject matter in Jagdish Mitter (supra), in
which, the Division Bench of this Court has held that without there being
any monetary loss suffered on account of supervision , the punishment of
cut in pension for a life cannot be imposed as the same will be
disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved.
9. In the present case also, there is no allegation of
misappropriation or causing monetary loss to the respondent-department and
the only allegation against the petitioner is with regard to counter signing
the information, which information was later on found to be forged.
10. That being so, claim of the petitioner that punishment of 5% cut
in pension for a life is totally disproportionate to the charges alleged and
proved against the petitioner and is covered by the judgment in Jagdish
Mitter (supra). Hence, the impugned order dated 26/27.04.2017 (Annexure
P/6) is set aside.
11. Keeping in view the fact that imposition of punishment is
within the jurisdiction of the punishing authority, matter is remanded back to
the authority concerned for passing a fresh order with regard to imposition
of punishment, which should commensurate to the charges alleged and
proved against the petitioner. Punishing authority should keep in mind the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Mitter (supra)
while passing a fresh order.
12. Let the fresh order be passed within a period of 08 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case after passing the fresh
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20156-CWP-2023 & -5- 2023:PHHC:154348
CM-20158-CWP-2023 in/&
CWP-18586-2017
order, petitioner is found entitled for any benefit including the release of
pension, which was already deducted, the same be released to the petitioner
within a further period of further 04 weeks.
December 04, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154348
5 of 5
