Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 7 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033327-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:033327-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) LPA-970-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 07.03.2024
Lakhwinder Singh
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2474-LPA-2023
Application for condonation of 24 days in re-filing the appeal has
been filed.
Notice in the application.
Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of 24 days in re-filing the
appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-970-2023
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2023 passed in CWP-14546-
2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed rejecting
the challenge to the order of stoppage of two annual increments with future
effect passed on 13.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 14.05.2020
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033327-DB
LPA-970-2023 (O&M) -2-
(Annexure P-6), whereby the suspension period was accordingly treated as
leave of kind due, was duly upheld.
2. The learned Single Judge while upholding the said orders noticed
that there were three charges contained in the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2015.
The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges regarding two
were proved, whereas regarding the third charge, it was held that charge is not
proved. It was in such circumstances, the order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure
P-4) had been passed. The same was done after conducting proper inquiry.
3. Keeping in view the limitations of judicial review and settled law,
we are of the considered opinion that the Learned Single Judge has not erred in
any manner for refusing to interfere in the order of punishment. Reliance can
be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others
vs. Subrata Nath 2022(16) Scale 828 wherein it has been held that decision in
departmental enquiry is not liable to be interfered until such findings are
patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record. The
relevant part reads as under:-
"22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding
authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the
evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the
evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental
inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in
mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of
powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the
Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its
own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until
the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it
would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033327-DB
LPA-970-2023 (O&M) -3-
to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran
(supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is
such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal,
then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to
re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional
circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High
Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself,
on offering cogent reasons therefor."
4. The Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and
others 1996(1) SCT 617, has held that the Court can interfere only if
punishment was found shockingly disproportionate and to do complete justice.
It is not the case of the appellant herein that proper procedure was not
followed and there is any violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, it
was within the domain of the employer to pass the order of punishment.
5. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is
dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
07.03.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : √Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes √No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033327-DB
3 of 3
