[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 February, 2026
CWP-28174-2025 -1-
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-28174-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.02.2026
Sher Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate
for the respondent-MC.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. Present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-7), vide which less retiral
benefits including pay, arrears of GPF, leave encashment and pension were
released in view of pendency of a criminal case and further to issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release full retiral benefits
1 of 10
to the petitioner.
2. On 02.02.2026, following order was passed by this Court: -
"Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
petitioner retired on 31.08.2020 from the post of Clerk. During his
service period, a false FIR No.59 dated 16.04.2011 under Section
409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against him, in
which, on 27.10.2012, cancellation report was submitted and the
same was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga
on 28.03.2019, prior to retirement of the petitioner, as discernible
from the order (Annexure P-2). Despite judicial closure of the
criminal case, the respondents withheld retiral benefits of the
petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition
i.e. CWP-4364-2021 and vide order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure
P-5), this Court disposed of the same and directed the competent
authority to decide his representation dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure
P-4) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of that order. Instead of complying with the
directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2021
(Annexure P-5), the respondents coerced the petitioner to submit
an affidavit (Annexure P-6) undertaking not to pursue the legal
remedies as a pre-condition for releasing his dues. Despite that,
retiral benefits of the petitioner are still not released. Further, a
speaking order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) was passed, vide
which two departmental inquiries conducted during service period
of the petitioner, which were pending for conclusion, were
considered as concluded and decided not to proceed further. As
such, there is no embargo in releasing retiral dues of the
petitioner.
2 of 10
A perusal of the speaking order (Annexure P-7) clearly
indicates that the matter has attained finality on 13.12.2023 and
the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court by way of filing
the present petition. This is 4th date in the urgents.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 seeks further
adjournment.
In view of the above, respondent No.1 is directed to file his
affidavit as to why in spite of passing of the speaking order
(Annexure P-7) on 13.12.2023 by respondent No.2, retiral dues of
the petitioner have not been released till date.
List again on 17.02.2026."
3. In purported compliance of the aforesaid order, learned State
counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent-MC have filed short
replies by way of affidavits of Manjeet Singh Brar, Secretary to Government of
Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab and Jaspinder Singh,
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Moga-respondent No.2, respectively, in
the Court today, which are taken on record and copies thereof have been
supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the
respondent-MC submit that all the admissible dues have been paid to the
petitioner and only the amount of Rs.3.40 lakhs has been withheld on the basis
of affidavit (Annexure P-6) furnished by him. As such, a lenient view was
taken.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the
3 of 10
impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) and submits that two
chargesheets were issued on 09.02.2001 and 09.05.2018, which were never
taken to their logical conclusion, as the disciplinary proceedings were not
ended in passing of any punishment order till date. Further, after retirement of
the petitioner on 31.08.2020, when he was in dire need of his retiral benefits,
an undertaking was obtained from him under duress, which is contrary to the
law laid down by this Court in CWP-28761-2025 titled as Ranjit Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.09.2025.
6. On a pointed query, learned State counsel as well as learned
counsel for the respondent-MC are not in a position to controvert the fact that
till date, no punishment order has been passed and merely vide resolution dated
233 dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure R-1), the chargesheets were ordered to be
dropped. The said resolution was passed by the General House of respondent
No.2-Corporation and not by the disciplinary authority.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner
retired from service on 31.08.2020. During his service tenure, one FIR No.59
dated 16.04.2011 was registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 against the petitioner, in which, on 27.10.2012, cancellation report was
submitted and the same was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Moga vide order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), prior to retirement of the
petitioner. Further, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner
4 of 10
while he was in service, by serving two chargesheets on 09.02.2001 and
09.05.2018 have not been concluded till date. As such, case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath
Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, Civil Appeal No.958 of
2010, decided on 16.12.2015 and the judgment of this Court in CWP-9606-
2022 titled as Khairati Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on
13.10.2025, wherein it has been held that the disciplinary proceedings against
an employee must be decided within a reasonable time. Without concluding the
disciplinary proceedings/enquiries within suitable timeframe and in the
absence of passing of any order of punishment, the respondents cannot
withhold part of the retiral dues of an employee merely on the basis of an
undertaking, which was taken under compelled circumstances.
8. Further, the petitioner was forced to furnish an affidavit for not
claiming the amount of Rs.3.40 lakhs, which was withheld/recovered from his
retiral dues for late depositing the electricity bills. In the said affidavit, it is
mentioned that if the Municipal Corporation, in future, decides to recover the
aforesaid amount, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim the same. In this
regard, this Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) has held that under the garb of
an undertaking obtained from the employee under duress, the employer being
an instrumentality of the State cannot withheld/deny the service benefits
including arrears of salary, increments, continuity of service and retiral
benefits. In the said judgment, with regard to whether an employee can be
5 of 10
denied substantial service rights on the basis of an undertaking given by
him/her on the dictate of the employer, following has been observed: -
"16. It must be noted that there is an inherent imbalance of power
between an employer and an employee. The employer, very
unambiguously, controls the source of livelihood of the employee
and thereby is in a position of influence. When such employer is
an instrumentality of the State itself, a unique opportunity is
presented to lead as an example. As such, it is vital that a fair
procedure established by law, preventing arbitrary abuse of power
is strictly adhered to. Demanding undertakings that lack legal
sanctity or capriciously denying benefit of the services rendered
by an employee is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees.
17. Unfortunately, the practice of extracting undertakings from
employees who have been reinstated after tedious litigation is
rather common. These undertakings are exploitative as they often
pertain to forgoing past service benefits including arrears of
salary, increments, continuity of service and retiral benefits and
are obtained by placing the employees under duress. Often the
reinstated employees are issued fresh appointment letters, as is the
case in the matter at hand, to deny them any benefits of their past
service, which directly impacts their regularization, seniority and
pensionary benefits. Considering that livelihoods are at stake, the
employees often remain silent in the face of these exploitative
practices. This Court cannot allow an employer to take advantage
of their employees' financial circumstances to bend them to their
will. As such, the question framed above is answered in the
following terms -
Such exploitative undertakings are void ab initio since no
6 of 10
employee can be forced to contract out of his statutory
rights."
9. Furthermore, in Khairati Lal's case (supra), this Court, while
relying upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs.
Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154, P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, 2005(6) SCC 636, State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal,
1995(2) SCC 570 and Prem Nath Bali's case (supra), has held that delay in
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated prior to retirement
of an employee cannot be attributed to him/her and directions in this regard
have been issued, by making the following observations: -
"10. Noting the harassment caused by delayed disciplinary
proceedings, the States of Punjab and Haryana have issued
various instructions, respectively, providing a timeline for
completion of every step of the process. This Court is constrained
to observe that in spite of the same, no change in approach has
been discernible. Every employee facing disciplinary action has a
legitimate right to have the proceedings concluded expeditiously.
Undue prolongation of proceedings often causes mental agony,
financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are
proven, which is a punishment in itself. Further, oftentimes, the
accused-employee is placed under protracted suspension while the
disciplinary proceedings continue at snail's pace. The provision
for suspension in the applicable Rules cannot be understood to
mean that the employee can be suspended indefinitely. If the
allegations are such that the concerned department feels the need
to continue an employee's suspension, such action ought to be
7 of 10
made with due care and after providing reasons for the same.
When delay is inordinate and remains unexplained by the
department concerned, it would be reasonable to presume
prejudice against the accused-employee. Moreover, with the efflux
of time, the employee may suffer loss of evidence on account of
non-availability of witnesses and fading memory, materially
altering his ability to effectively defend himself. Since unjustified
prolonged delay unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the accusing
authority, delay alone is a considerable ground to suffocate the
proceedings.
11. Crucially, the employer must conduct such proceedings
diligently and without any unnecessary delay. Protracted
enquiries breed inefficiency, demoralization, and distrust in the
system thereby defeating the very purpose of disciplinary
mechanism established to ensure that principles of efficiency,
integrity and accountability are upheld. A lack of seriousness in
pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may
indicate malice or oblique motives. Thus, this Court cannot allow
the employer to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling
over an employee indefinitely.
12. Any procedure which does not ensure the culmination of
disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable dispatch, would fall
foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Timely
determination of guilt or innocence of the accused employee is an
integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court
witnesses multiple cases on a daily basis where the employees are
aggrieved by whimsical timelines adopted by relevant authorities
to conclude disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. In the
8 of 10
present case itself, there was a delay of over a decade. As such,
with an intention to safeguard the constitutional guarantees
provided under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the
following directions are issued:
(i) The charge-sheet must be issued within a reasonable period.
(ii) The inquiry must be concluded within 6 months of issuance
of the charge-sheet.
(iii)The Punishing Authority shall decide the matter within 3
months of receipt of the inquiry report.
(iv) The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal
preferred against decision of the Punishing Authority within 3
months of filing of such an appeal.
(v) Thus, the entire process of disciplinary action must
conclude within 01 year at the most. Any unexplained or
inordinate delay beyond this period shall vitiate the proceedings
and invite an adverse inference against the disciplinary
authority.
(vi) The Administrative Secretaries of the concerned
departments as well as heads of relevant Boards and
Corporations are also directed to conduct a quarterly review in
order to ensure that the prescribed timeline is scrupulously
followed and no disciplinary action is unjustly delayed."
10. In the wake of above discussion, present petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent
No.2-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Moga is hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to release the withheld amount of Rs.3.40 lakhs in
favour of the petitioner along with interest @6% per annum from the due date
9 of 10
till its actual realization. Needful be done within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. In case the respondent-Corporation deviates from the directions
issued by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appropriate
application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the
contempt proceedings before this Court.
12. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
17.02.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
