Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh Hundal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117157
248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-11989-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 03
03-09-2024
INDERJIT SINGH HUNDAL ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. C.L Premy, Advocate with
Mrs. Raman Rekhi, Advocate for
for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance being rraised
aised by the
petitioner is that the respondents vide impugned order dated 16.02.2012
(Annexure P-10)
P imposed a punishment of cut in pension to the tune of 5%
for the rest of life, upon the petitioner, which act on the part of the
respondent is totally arbitrary
arbitrary and illegal and disproportionate to the charges
alleged against the petitioner
petitioner as well as the letter dated 26.07.2012
(Annenxure P-12)
P 12) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been
rejected without giving any reasons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the charges alleged against the petitioner, as there was no loss caused to the
State Exchequer, the punishment of cut in pension imposed and that too to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117157
CWP-11989-2021 (O&M) -2-
the tune of 5% for the rest of life is totally disproportionate to the charges
alleged against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the
appellate authority has passed a one line order rejecting the appeal of the
petitioner that after consideration, the same is rejected without even stating
the reasons for not accepting the claim of the petitioner in the appeal, which
cannot not sustained.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in the
order deciding the appeal, the appellate authority has already mentioned that
the official did not produce any new fact and only mentioned that it was only
due to heavy workload the actual facts escaped notice while recording the
MLR of the patient, hence the appeal has rightly been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
A bare perusal of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
punishment order would show that various arguments had been raised with
regard to the imposition of punishment. None of the grounds have been dealt
with by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioners. Even the argument that the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the charges alleged and 5% of cut in pension cannot be
imposed for the rest of life, no such decision has been taken by the appellate
authority on the said argument.
Further, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in LPA NO.340 of 2017 titled "Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
ors." decided on 08.02.2023, wherein it has been held that where there is no
allegation of causing loss to the State Exchequer, the punishment of cut in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117157
CWP-11989-2021 (O&M) -3-
pension cannot be imposed for life and the appellate authority is liable to
reconsider the issue so as to pass appropriate speaking order by following
the due process hence, the order dated 16.02.2012, copy of which has been
appended as Annexure P-10 is set aside with a direction to the appellate
authority to pass fresh appropriate speaking order on the appeal of the
petitioner in accordance with the law by keeping in view the settled principle
of law noticed hereinabove.
Let the fresh order be passed within a period of 8 weeks from
the receipt of copy of this order.
Present petition is disposed of in above terms.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
03-09-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
