Dismissed¶¶26

Dr. B.K. Singal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2025CWP/919/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. B.K. Singal v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP-919-2001 (O&M), {2024:PHHC:001563}, decided 08.01.2024 by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral): writ petition (filed 2001; no counsel appeared for petitioner) dismissed; challenge to punishment order dated 21.02.1998 and appeal order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-7) upholding 10% pension reduction under Rule 2.2(b) Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-II, Part-I, following departmental enquiry for misuse of Government vehicle and absence from duty, failed; charges held specific, natural justice followed, review rejected, no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the charges were not definite and not clear is without basis; the charge sheet specifically mentions misuse of the Government vehicle by the petitioner and his absence from duty. ¶¶24

Dr. B.K. Singal Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's contention that the charges levelled against him were not definite and not clear has any basis. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The contention that the charges were not definite and not clear is without basis; the charge sheet specifically mentions misuse of the Government vehicle by the petitioner and his absence from duty.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The principles and provisions of the Rules have been followed regarding the conducting of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The scope of interference in a departmental enquiry is limited; the principles of natural justice having been followed by the respondents and the petitioner admittedly found absent from duty, no interference of this Court is warranted.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J., oral), CWP-919-2001 (O&M), decided 08.01.2024 ({2024:PHHC:001563}): Writ petition of 2001 filed by Dr. B.K. Singal challenging the punishment order dated 21.02.1998 and the appellate order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-7) upholding reduction of 10% of his pension under Rule 2.2(b), Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-II, Part-I, imposed after a departmental enquiry for misuse of the Government vehicle and absence from duty, is dismissed. The enquiry report indicting him on both charges was served and his objections considered; notice of proposed punishment issued 08.02.1994; the Public Service Commission gave its opinion on the 10% cut; his Review Petition stood rejected. His contention that the charges were not definite and not clear was held baseless, the charge sheet specifically mentioning both charges. The scope of interference in departmental enquiries being limited, natural justice having been observed and the petitioner admittedly found absent from duty, no interference was warranted; the petition was found without merits and dismissed, and all pending applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

{2024:PHHC:001563}

¶2

306

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-919-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.01.2024

¶5

DR. B.K. SINGAL ..…...Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. D.K. Singal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶11

******* SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶12

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

As this Writ Petition is of the year 2001, therefore, the same has

¶14

been taken up today for final arguments.

¶15

The petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has challenged the order of punishment dated 21.02.1998 and the order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-7) passed in his Appeal upholding the punishment of reducing 10% of his pension.

¶16

The charges leveled against the petitioner are of misusing of the Government vehicle and remaining absent from duty. A copy of the enquiry report, which indicted the petitioner of both the charges, was served upon the petitioner and after receiving his reply/objections, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and passed an order of punishment in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-II, Part-I imposing a punishment of reducing 10% of his pension.

¶17

Suresh Kumar 2024.01.09 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

{2024:PHHC:001563}

¶19

CWP-919-2001 (O&M)

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

The Review Petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected.

¶22

It is also noticed that the petitioner was served with a notice on 08.02.1994 with regard to the proposed punishment. Thus, this Court finds that the principles and provisions of the Rules have been followed regarding conducting of the departmental enquiry against him.

¶23

The Public Service Commission has also given its opinion for stopping 10% cut in his pension.

¶24

The contention of the petitioner that the charges were not definite and not clear is found to be without any basis. In this regard, this Court finds that the charge sheet specifically mentions misuse of the Government vehicle by the petitioner and his absence from duty.

¶25

The scope of interference in the departmental enquiry is limited. Considering that the principles of natural justice have been followed by the respondents, and the petitioner admittedly was found absent from duty, no interference of this Court is warranted for in this Writ Petition.

¶26

The writ petition is, thus, found to be without merits and the same is dismissed as such.

¶27

All pending applications in this Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly.

¶28

January 8, 2024 [ SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] Ess Kay JUDGE

¶29

Whether speaking / reasoned	:	Yes	/ No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes	/ No

¶30

Suresh Kumar 2024.01.09 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dr. B.K. Singal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. B.K. Singal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ms Prabhjot Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jagsir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Seema Mehra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.