Pradeep Synghal vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3554 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pradeep Synghal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 March, 2025

                             Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB




CWP-6448
    6448-2024 (O&M)                                                         1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                  CWP-6448-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 24.03.202
                                                                         .2025


Pradeep Synghal                                            ....Petitioner

                                          V/s


State of Punjab and others                                 ....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:     Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal,, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Pankaj Gautam & Mr. Abhishek Shukla,
                                                                Shukla
             Advocates for the petitioner.

             Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
             for respondent No.1.

             Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. Ranjeet Singh Kalra & Ms. Seerat, Advocates
             for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

                                         *****

SUMEET GOEL, GOEL JUDGE

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court,

seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Charge-sheet sheet

dated 14.07.2021, Inquiry report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance and

Disciplinary committee's order dated 31.07.2023 and the subsequent

acceptance thereof by the Full Court held on 06.10.2023 as well as the

consequential order of dismissal from service dated 14.11.2023.

2. Shorn of non-essential essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the

lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

1 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

(i). Having qualified the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial)

Examination in the year 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge

(Junior Division) and in May 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post

of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon.

(ii). Subsequent to the complaint(s) made against the petitioner and

after having been afforded opportunity to respond thereto, a fact-finding finding

inquiry was constituted wherein the statements of several witnesses,

including the staff members was recorded co consequent thereupon the

petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.2020.

14.12.2020

Further, vide memorandum dated 14.07.2021, a charge sheet was served

upon the petitioner, with prime allegations as follows:

a. Firstly,, the petitioner, in collusion with one Pankaj Mittal

and Vikas Mittal, entertained and adjudicated upon seven criminal

complaints of a similar nature, in a stereotypical and mechanical

manner, without adhering to the mandatory statutory procedure procedure.. The

complainants, being personally acquainted with the petitioner, complainants,

manipulated the territorial jurisdiction by fabricating the alleged

incidents within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagraon, where the

petitioner was stationed at the relevant time. Consequently Consequently, it was said

that the petitioner abused judicial discretion, acting as a mere puppet

in the hands of the complainants, thereby facilitating their ulterior

motives and effectively assuming the role of their de facto recovery

agent.

b. oner, in gross misuse of his official Secondly, the petitioner,

position, unlawfully facilitated the complainants in the afore-

afore

mentioned seven complaints by improperly deputing Process Servers 2 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

to Maharashtra and Bihar, in flagrant violation of procedural

mandates. Such actions, undertaken undertaken with the intent to extend undue

advantage to the complainants, are asserted to be in derogation of the

principles of judicial propriety and the high ethical standards expected

of a judicial officer. Consequently, the petitioner was accused of

failing to uphold honesty, integrity and devotion to duty, thereby failing

engaging in conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.

c. Thirdly,, the receipt book of challans maintained in the

office of the Nazar, Sub-Divisional Sub Divisional Courts, Jagraon, which fell

directly under the supervisory control of the petitioner, was not

properly maintained, thereby compromising financial accountability.

The possibility of embezzlement arising from such irregularities could

not be entirely ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner failed in his duty to

report these grave discrepancies to the competent authorities, thereby

exhibiting dereliction of duty and a lack of administrative diligence.

Such omission and negligence were stated to constitute conduct

unbecoming of a judicial officer.

d. Fourthly,, that upon receipt of a complaint submitted by

certain advocates, the petitioner misused his official position by

summoning a Process Server with the intent to intimidate and coerce

him into silence. By doing so, the petitioner is accused of deliberately deliberat

suppressing material facts in an attempt to evade disciplinary action

against himself. Such conduct, allegedly driven by ulterior motives, is

deemed to be inconsistent with the dignity, impartiality, and ethical

standards expected of a judicial officer officer,, thereby amounting to

misconduct unbecoming of the office he holds.

3 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

(iii). Upon the petitioner's submission of reply to the charge sheet

dated 14.07.2021, 14.07.2021 an Inquiry Officer was appointed to examine the matter.

The said Inquiry Officer, vide her report dated 07.01.2023, rendered findings

wherein Charges No. 1, 2, and 4 were held to be duly substantiated against

the petitioner.

(iv). The petitioner was served with a show cause notice notice, through a

communication dated 01.03.2023, accompanied by a copy of tthe he inquiry

report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 07.04.2023,

wherein the petitioner challenged the veracity and legitimacy of the inquiry

report, raising objections regarding its genuineness, procedural propriety,

and evidentiary evidentiar sufficiency.

(v). The matter was thereafter placed before the Vigilance

Committee of Respondent No.3 - High Court, which in its meeting on

31.07.2023, considering the reply filed by the petitioner, resolved to accept

the findings of the inquiry report dated 7.01.2023 and accordingly

recommended the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service

upon the petitioner.

(vi). Subsequently, the matter was submitted for consideration

before the Full Court of Respondent No.3 - High Court, which on

06.10.2023, approved and affirmed the recommendation of the Vigilance

Committee, thereby sanctioning the petitioner's dismissal from service.

(vi). The he order dated 14.11.2023 was consequently issued, whereby

the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereby terminating his tenure as

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).

(vii). It is in the backdrop of this factual milieu that the writ petition

in n hand seeks consideration at hands of this Court.

4 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

3. Learned earned counsel for the petitioner petitioner; led by Shri Vijay Kumar

Jindal, Senior Advocate;

Advocate have contended that the petitioner had been

discharging his judicial functions with utmost rectitude and impartiality, impartial

which incurred the displeasure of certain local advocates and litigants. It is

asserted that, motivated by malice, false and frivolous complaints were

engineered against the petitioner with the sole intent of tarnishing his

reputation and maligning his his judicial integrity. It has been further iterated

that there is no worthwhile material brought on record during the course of

inquiry which may connect or hold the petitioner liable for any misconduct.

It has been further urged by learned counsel that the Inquiry Officer, in her

report dated 07.01.2023, erroneously inferred misconduct on the petitioner's

part, despite the absence of cogent, probative and legally sustainable

evidence on record. It is further argued that no substantive material exists to

support port the alleged misconduct, and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer

are perverse, arbitrary, and wholly unsustainable in law. It is urged that no

reasonable person, acting judiciously and in accordance with law, could have

arrived at the conclusions drawn in the inquiry report dated 07.01.2023.

Learned counsel have further urged that the findings have been arrived at

without proper appreciation of evidence and there are several contradictions

in the statements of the witnesses which have gone unnotice unnoticed d by the inquiry

officer.. It has been argued that, a comprehensive evaluation of the material

presented before the Inquiry Officer, would unequivocally establish that the

petitioner has been wrongfully implicated and that no act of misconduct can

be legitimately imately attributed to him. On strength of these submissions, the grant

of writ petition in hand is entreated for.

5 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the

State has acted upon the recommendations made by the respondent no.3 --

High Court
       urt and there isno
                     i    folly on its part
                                       part.

4.1.         Written reply

eply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.2

& 3,, through Sh Varun Nagpal, OSD (Litigation), High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh.

Chandigarh Learned counsel ounsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 2&

3 while raising submissions in tandem with the same has urged that the

inquiry in question was carried out against the petitioner (herein) in

accordance with the prescribed procedure and there is no error therein.

Learned counsel has urged that all concerned concerned were afforded due opportunity

to put forth their case before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence brought on

record therein clearly establishes the culpability of the petitioner (herein). It

has been further iterated that the Disciplinary Committee hhas as also considered

the inquiry report in its correct perspective p spective and it is thereafter the

punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed

upon the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further asserted that

the scope of judicial judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is extremely

limited and circumscribed by well-established established legal principles. It has been

thus argued that, as disciplinary proceedings in the instant case have been

conducted in accordance with due process and the finding of guilt has been

arrived at based on sufficient material duly placed before the inquiry officer,

this Court ought to exercise restraint and ought not to interfere with the

conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer officer.

4.2 The concerned Inquiry iry Officer was impleaded as respondent

No.4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner (on instructions from the

petitioner) had sought for and was granted leave to delete the name of 6 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

respondent No.4 from the array of parties, which factum is recorded in the

order dated 29.04.2024 earlier passed by this Court in this petition.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

6. The prime issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition

in hand is;

is as to whether the Inquiry Report dated 07.01.2023, order of the

Vigilance &Disciplinary &Disciplinary Committee dated 31.07.2023 31.07.2023, the acceptance of the

report of the Vigilance &Disciplinary Disciplinary Committee on 06.10.2023 and the

resultant dismissal order dated 14.11.2023 ought to be set aside &the &

petitioner be reinstated in services.

7. Before proceeding to delve further, it would be apposite to refer

herein to a Three Judge Bench judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case titled as Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)

and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612,wherein wherein it has

been held as under:-

"23.

23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is ci circumscribed rcumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier exa examined mined by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan3 and later in Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian4 and further examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others5 wherein it has been held as under:

"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be

7 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 718]] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be iissued."

24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya Dahiya, 2017 (1) SCC 768 and recently by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others,, 2020 (9) SCC 471.

25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision- decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any mann manner, er, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of cert certiorari iorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence an andd authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record cord be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the

8 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true thathatt mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where ther there is no o evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority,, the same has to be sustained.

sustained."

(ii) More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court iin n a judgment titled

as State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 SCC Online (SC) 1064has

held as under:-

under:

"36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making making process is legitimate and to ensur ensuree that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshmanrekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court."

Court.

7.1. It is, therefore, indisputable that the scope of judicial review in

matters pertaining to departmental inquiry proceedings is narrow and

circumscribed. Such judicial review is not appellate in nature, nor does it

extend to a re-evaluation re evaluation of the merits of the decision rendered by the

disciplinary authority. The writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is

primarily confined to scrutinizing the legitimacy oof the decision-making making

process, ensuring that the findings recorded are not devoid of evidentiary 9 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

support, and that the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the

principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, ought not to engage in a

reappraisal sal of facts or evidence, but must restrict itself to examining

procedural propriety and the adjudicatory framework employed by the

disciplinary authority.The scope of interference is limited to ensuring

fairness in treatment rather than fairness in the ul ultimate timate conclusion reached.

Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where the findings of the

disciplinary authority are so manifestly perverse that no reasonable or

prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion. Similarly, if the

decision sion suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record or is

based on no evidence whatsoever, the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be

exercised to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. However, this Court

neither functions as an appellate forum nor can it entertain plea plea(s) for the

reassessment or re-appreciation re appreciation of evidence, as such an exercise would

transcend the permissible bounds of judicial review in matters of

departmental inquiries.

8. Reverting to the facts of the lisin hand; it is common ground

between the learned rival counsel, further substantiated by the record records of the

case, that the petitioner was afforded ample and adequate opportunities at

every material stage of the disciplinary proceedings to present his defence

and contest contest the allegations levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted

by the competent authority in adherence to the fundamental principles of

natural justice, ensuring that all procedural safeguards were observed. A

thorough perusal of the record establishes that no procedural irregularity or

infirmity marred the inquiry proceedings nor any departure from the

established due process is discernible.

10 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

9. The gravamen of the petitioner's contention contention, primarily hinges

upon the assertion that the Inquiry Officer hhas as failed to appreciate and assess

the evidence in its true and proper perspective, thereby reaching an

erroneous conclusion regarding the petitioner's culpability in the alleged

misconduct However, upon perusal nay analytical scrutiny of the findings misconduct.

recorded orded by the Inquiry Officer, particularly when examined against the

backdrop of the entire evidentiary record, it becomes manifestly evident that

the findings were arrived at only after a painstaking and exhaustive

evaluation of the materials brought forth during the inquiry inquiry.The .The disciplinary

proceedings in question entailed the examination of multiple witnesses

whose testimonies were recorded and scrutinized in accordance with the

prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer has examined several key

witnesses; including Sh. Mohinder Singh Sidhwan (Advocate), Sh. Ravi

Kumar (Process Server), Sh. Sandeep Singh (Process Server), Sh. Sumit

Goel (Senior Assistant), Sh. Jasdeep Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone), Sh.

Vipul Gupta (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), Sh. Parminder Singh (Ahlmad),

Sh. Anuj Aggarwal (one of the complainants), and Sh. Vikrant Singh

(Ahlmad) to name a few. Each of these witnesses, possessing direct or (Ahlmad);

circumstantial knowledge pertinent to the allegations under inquiry,

provided depositions that that were assessed and weighed by the Inquiry Officer.

In addition to oral testimonies, relevant documentary evidence was diligently

gathered, reviewed, and placed on record. The Inquiry Officer undertook a

comprehensive scrutiny of the documentary material and it was only upon

appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence that the Inquiry Officer,

vide its report dated 07.01.2023, recorded a finding of guilt against the

petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to contend that the findings of the 11 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

Inquiry Officer were devoid of evidentiary support or that the conclusion of

guilt was based on mere conjecture and surmise. To the contrary, the record

amply demonstrates that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to

rebut the evidence marshaled against against him and to adduce materials in his

defence. In view of the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that

the petitioner issued summons in criminal complaints filed on behalf of Sh.

Pankaj Mittal and Sh.. Vikas Mittal without adhering to the manda mandatory tory

statutory provisions enshrined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. This fact assumes significance in light of the fact that the

complainants were listed as Facebook friends of the petitioner, and records

indicate telephonic communications communications between them and the petitioner.

Furthermore, the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar, testified before the inquiry

officer that, under verbal instructions and intimidation by the petitioner, he

traveled to Nasik, Maharashtra, to serve the summon. This assertion is

corroborated by mobile location records of the process server, Sh. Ravi

Kumar. Considering these factor, it is evident that the inquiry officer's

imputation of misconduct to the petitioner is well well-founded founded and not without

any material on record.

record

10. It is trite law that the sufficiency, adequacy, or quality of

evidence adduced during a disciplinary proceeding falls within the exclusive

domain of the competent authority conducting such proceedings. The

standard of proof required in such inquirie inquiriess is not akin to that in a criminal

trial, where the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is applicable.

Rather, disciplinary proceedings adhere to the principle of 'preponderance

of probabilities' wherein a finding of guilt may be sustained if, up upon on an

objective assessment of the evidence, the probability of misconduct 12 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

outweighs the probability of innocence. Thus, the contention advanced on

behalf of the petitioner, challenging the adequacy and sufficiency of the

evidence relied upon to establish guilt, guilt, is legally untenable and falls entirely

outside the permissible scope of judicial review in the present writ petition.

It is a settled canon of service jurisprudence that a writ court, while

exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti Constitution, tution, is not to act

as an appellate forum over the findings recorded in a duly conducted

departmental inquiry. This Court is neither empowered nor obligated to

undertake a re-evaluation re evaluation or reappraisal of the evidence presented before the

Inquiry Officer nor can it substitute its own opinion for that of the

disciplinary authority, save in cases where the findings suffer from manifest

perversity, patent illegality, or are rendered in complete absence of evidence.

In the instant case, however, no such accent accentuating circumstances have been

demonstrated by the petitioner that would call for interference by this Court

in its plenary writ jurisdiction. It is not for this court to assess whether the

conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 007.01.2023, 7.01.2023, is

the most appropriate or whether a different inference could have been drawn

from the evidence on record.

11. Ergo,, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear

that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were co conducted nducted

strictly in accordance with law, procedural due process was adhered to, and

the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry

Officer's findings vide vi its report dated 07.01.2023, were rendered after a

thorough and detailed detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence, and

no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant judicial interference. The

petitioner's plea, which essentially invites this Court to reassess the evidence 13 of 14

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038633-DB

CWP-6448

and substitute its own conclusion for that of th thee Inquiry Officer, is beyond

the pale of permissible judicial review. Thus the subsequent acceptance of

the inquiry report dated by the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee vide its

order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance of the recommendations of the

Vigilancee & Disciplinary Committee by the Hon'ble Full Court vide minutes

of 21st meeting of the year 2023 held on 06.10.2023 and the consequent

dismissal of services of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2023 cannot be

said to be bad in law. Consequently, the petitioner's challenge to the findings

of the inquiry officer as also the consequent action(s) taken, is devoid of

merit and does not warrant interference under this Court's writ jurisdiction.

jurisdiction

Thus, the petition in hand deserves dismissal.

Decision

12. In view of the preceding ratiocination, the writ petition in hand

is dismissed smissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. No

order as to costs.

(SUMEET GOEL)                                           (SHEEL NAGU)
    JUDGE                                               CHIEF JUSTICE


March 24
       4, 2025
Naveen/Ajay


              Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
              Whether reportable:                       Yes/No




                                14 of 14