Krishan Kumar Vs Home Secretary Haryana and Others

The present Le�ers Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1804-2025, whereby the writ pe��on filed by the Appellant, seeking quashing of the le�ers dated 07.03.2024 & 02.04.2024 recommending ini�a�on of departmental proceedings, as well as le�er/order dated 02.04.2024 direc�ng ini�a�on of such departmental enquiry, has been

¶17

disposed off.

¶18

Shorn of unnecessary details, the essen�al facts required to be no�ced are that vide le�er dated 07.03.2024, respondent No.8 recommended ini�a�on of departmental enquiry against the appellant on the allega�ons of gross negligence in not handing back the case file of FIR No.299 dated 30.05.2019 registered at Police Sta�on Sohna, Gurugram. It was alleged that the appellant was handed over the case file during his pos�ng at the Police Sta�on in ques�on from 08.10.2022 to 14.02.2023, for the purpose of inves�ga�on. A�er his transfer to Police Sta�on Sector-65, he was asked several �mes to hand over the charge of the file in ques�on and other files, however, he

¶19

SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

LPA-912-2025

¶21

2

¶22

refused to do the needful. Other allega�ons regarding not comple�ng the file with the necessary documents etc., were also made.

¶23

A�er the receipt of the said le�er, respondent No. 5 vide le�er dated 02.04.2024 sought permission for ini�a�on of departmental enquiry from respondent No. 4. A�er examining the allega�ons against the appellant, respondent no. 4 was prima facie of the view that the departmental enquiry was required to be ini�ated against the appellant, and order dated 02.04.2024 was passed to that effect. Admi�edly, the appellant par�cipated in the enquiry proceedings and his statement was recorded on 27.04.2024 and as per the appellant, all the original documents which were alleged to be missing, were produced by him. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the appellant filed CWP No. 1804 of 2025, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdic�on of this Court under Ar�cle 226 of the Cons�tu�on of India, challenging the ini�a�on of the departmental ac�on against him vide impugned le�ers and order dated 02.04.2024.

¶24

It was inter-alia alleged in the pe��on that the en�re ac�on is vi�ated since the same is actuated in malice and the appellant was being vic�mized for honestly inves�ga�ng the case involving influen�al people. It was also alleged that the departmental enquiry had been ini�ated with the intent to withhold the re�ral benefits of the appellant, who re�ed on 30.04.2024 and was facing immense financial hardship on account the arbitrary ac�on of the authori�es. By referring to judicial precedents wherein it was held that departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, it was stated that despite the re�rement of the appellant, the departmental proceedings were kept pending and no decision was being taken by respondent No.4.

¶25

The learned Single Judge disposed of the pe��on filed by the appellant, vide order dated 23.01.2025, which is reproduced as under:-

¶26

“ 1. The pe��oner through instant pe��on under Ar�cles 226/227 of the Cons�tu�on of India is seeking se�ng aside of departmental inquiry le�er dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings.

¶27

SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

LPA-912-2025

¶29

3

¶30

2. On being pointed out by this Court that departmental proceedings are s�ll pending and no final order has been passed, Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate submits that pe��oner has already re�red, thus, pending departmental proceedings are causing irreparable loss and his grievance at this stage would be redressed, if the respondents are directed to complete departmental proceedings in a �me bound manner.

¶31

3. Faced with this, Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who on advance no�ce is present in Court, submits that Disciplinary Authority would conclude departmental proceedings within 3 months from today.

¶32

4. Counsel for pe��oner agrees to the aforesaid arrangement.

¶33

5. In the wake of statement of both sides, the present pe��on stands

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

6. It is made clear that pe��oner, if permissible by law would be released provisional pension within 4 weeks’ from today and all re�ral dues on conclusion of departmental proceedings subject to its outcome .”

¶36

Aggrieved from the aforemen�oned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present Le�ers Patent Appeal.

¶37

Perusal of the grounds raised in the appeal would show that the same are re-itera�on of the grounds raised in the writ pe��on. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge should have allowed the pe��on instead of direc�ng the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of three months.

¶38

During the pendency of the present Appeal, a status report has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been disclosed that the departmental enquiry stands concluded and respondent No. 4 vide its order of punishment dated 22.05.2025 has ordered to withhold 2% pension of the appellant, for five months, with immediate effect, under applicable provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2016 and other relevant disciplinary regula�ons. A copy of the order dated 22.05.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. It is further men�oned that in compliance of the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1804-2025, all re�ral benefits including provisional pension, except gratuity and commuta�on, have

¶39

SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

LPA-912-2025

¶41

4

¶42

already been disbursed to the appellant. It is further stated that since the departmental enquiry against the appellant has been decided vide order dated 22.05.2025, accordingly the pending re�ral benefits i.e. gratuity and commuta�on, will be released to the appellant in accordance with the rules at the earliest.

¶43

We have heard the appellant, who is present in person.

¶44

Apart from repea�ng the allega�ons as contained in the writ pe��on, the appellant has failed to answer as to how any cause of ac�on survives in the present appeal a�er conclusion of the departmental proceedings, which stand culminated a�er the passing of the punishment order dated 22.05.2025. The appellant does not dispute that there is a remedy of statutory appeal against the said order.

¶45

In view thereof, nothing survives in the present appeal, which has become infructuous, and is dismissed accordingly.

¶46

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE JUDGE August 22, 2025 ajaysharma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶47

SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishan Kumar v. Home Secretary Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. Home Secretary Haryana and Others

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

Similar cases

Haryana Staff Selection Commission Vs Jagdip Singh and Others

Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Om Pal @ Ompal Sharma and Others

Naved Khan No. 1187/FBD Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tarun Vs Arvind Rai Dig Gcc Crpf Pinjore

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anothers