Partap Singh Sabharwal Vs State of Haryana

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the LRs of the petitioner for the issuance of an appropriate writ direction or order, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside punishment order Annexure P/7 dated 23.12.2020 passed by the respondent, imposing penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner; as well as the enquiry report Annexure P/1 dated 21.3.2016, holding the petitioner guilty of certain charges levelled against him.

¶16

It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working as Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department and was posted at Gurugram. Petitioner had rendered 30 years of service. While working as such at Bhiwani, petitioner

¶17

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 2 of 14

¶19

was issued Chargesheet dated 07.12.2012 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1987 Rules’). It is contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were absurd to say the least. By way of example, learned Senior Counsel refers to one of the charges against the petitioner to the effect that petitioner had purchased Malathion 50% EC at the enhanced rate of Rs.210/- per litre. Learned Senior Counsel refers to the comparative purchase rates of the said pesticide in other Districts of Haryana to submit that the very same pesticide had been purchased in other Districts of Haryana between Rs. 200 to Rs.230/- per litre. It is contended that therefore, the petitioner could not have been held guilty for purchase of the same pesticide @ Rs.210/-; and to do so is absolutely illegal and illogical.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel also submits that another charge held to be proved against the petitioner is for the purchase of Nemicidine at the rate of Rs.240/- per litre on 04.01.2011; whereas the same is available on 06.12.2011 at the rate of Rs.93/- per litre. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the rates available on 06.12.2011 cannot be comparable with the rates available 11 months prior thereto on 04.01.2011. Even otherwise, purchase of similar product was made by the Department at Hisar at the rate of Rs.357/- per litre. Therefore, petitioner could not have been held guilty for embezzlement for the differential amount. Similarly, ld. Senior Counsel takes this Court through the various other charges held to be proved against the petitioner to submit that even

¶21

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 3 of 14

¶23

the same are unsustainable being absurd, illogical, irrational, and imprudent.

¶24

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that petitioner had faced criminal trial on the very same charges, and had been acquitted. It is contended that for this reason as well, petitioner would not have been punished vide the impugned order.

¶25

It is lastly submitted that the Director General, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana vide his letter dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P-6) sent to the respondent-Department had recommended the case of the petitioner pointing out therein that petitioner had been acquitted in criminal trial and therefore, disciplinary action is not required. 6. Learned Senior Counsel also relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610 to contend that in cases of perversity, this Court is permitted to interfere in disciplinary proceedings in service matters under Articles 226 and 227. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P-7) be set aside.

¶26

Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it is established position in law that mere acquittal in criminal trial would not be binding upon the respondent-State. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has adopted proper procedure of law as stipulated under Rule 7 of 1987 Rules as amended in 2016. As such, no cause is made out

¶27

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 4 of 14

¶29

to interfere in the impugned order. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

¶30

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.

¶31

Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:– 07.12.2012: While working as Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department at Bhiwani, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet under rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987. On the same substance of allegations, a private criminal complaint was also filed against the petitioner and 3 others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani in 2012 itself.

¶32

21.03.2016: The enquiry officer completed the Departmental Enquiry Annexure P/1 . As per the said Report, only three charges were held to be proved, namely charge 1(ii) & (iv) are proved and charge no. 3, 6 are partly proved.

¶33

16.05.2016: On 16.05.2026, Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner..

¶34

02.12.2016: The petitioner, through his letter Annexure P/2 requested for postponement of proceedings in view of the pendency of a trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same set of allegations.

¶35

19.08.2019: The court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed its judgement in the criminal trial Annexure P/3, holding in paras 51 & 52,

¶36

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 5 of 14

¶38

that " the petitioner is hereby held to have been wrongly and legally prosecuted by the complainant, without any sanction. …… "

¶39

30.08.2019: The petitioner wrote to the respondent by way of reply to the enquiry report, Annexure P/4, that in view of findings recorded in a criminal trial, the Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner be dropped, inasmuch as the allegations had been put to complete and detailed trial before the Criminal Court resulting in findings as recorded above.

¶40

13.11.2019: The District Attorney through his letter Annexure P/5 pointed out that it was not a case which could be further taken up in appeal.

¶41

24.04.2020: Upon this, the Government (Disciplinary Authority) sought comments of the Director of the Agriculture Department on the issue of findings of the enquiry. The Director of the Agriculture Department, while enclosing the enquiry report and the reply of the petitioner dated 30.08.2019 to drop the charges against him, sought comments of the Addl. Director of the Agriculture Department. The Director of the Department, vide Annexure P/6, wrote to the respondent that the Additional Director of the Agriculture Department had given the following comments: -

¶42

"The matter came in the court of Jyoti Lamba Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani in criminal complaint No. 1771C of 2012/2013/2015 and was decided on 19-08-2019. The said court acquitted all the accused including Sh. Partap Singh Sabharwal. The enquiry report was submitted on 21.03.2016 by Sh. BP Batra (IAS retd) and the decision of the court came on 19.08.2019.

¶43

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 6 of 14

¶45

So there is no requirement of any comments and the undersigned agrees with the decision of the court. The enquiry report documents are enclosed herewith."

¶46

It was further stated in the aforesaid letter of the Director of

¶47

the Department that further action be taken keeping in view the aforesaid comments given by the Additional Director.

¶48

23.12.2020: However, the respondent passed punishment order Annexure P/7, imposing major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

¶49

It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the charges against the petitioner are absurd, illogical, et cetera. However, a perusal of the Enquiry Report (Annexure P-1) shows that the following serious charges were held to be proved against the petitioner: -

¶50

“2(i) Shri Partap Singh Sabharwal. while serving as Deputy Director of Agriculture in Bhiwani from 26.08.2009 to 19.04.2012 mistake to which he would have been charged in the following manner:-

¶51

XX XX XX

¶52

(i) Rs.1,40,000/- on purchase of Cemac company formed Malathion pesticides. (PROVED)

¶53

XX XX XX

¶54

(iv) Rs.3,23,400/- on purchase of Neemincidin pesticides. (PARTIALLY PROVED)

¶55

XX XX XX

¶56

(3) That Shri Partap Singh Sabharwal did not fulfill the targets set for Rabi and Kharif crops for the year 2010-11. (PROVED)

¶57

XX XX XX

¶58

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 7 of 14

¶60

(6) That Shri Partap Singh Sabharwal bought the pesticides drugs and without testing the quality of pesticides distributing with the farmers. (PARTIALLY PROVED)” 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that

¶61

in respect of charge (i), there was no error in the petitioner’s buying Malathion 50% EC at the rate of Rs.210/- per litre as, in other Districts, the said pesticide had been bought in the range of Rs. 200 to Rs.230/- per litre. Similarly in case of other charges, learned Senior Counsel has referred to comparative charts to contend that as the pesticides/insecticides as mentioned in the charges had been bought at the comparable rates therefore, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not justified.

¶62

The said argument is fundamentally flawed as the rates at which the petitioner had bought the pesticides/insecticides are not to be compared with the enhanced rates at which they were bought in other Districts. The rates on which the petitioner had bought the said pesticides are to be compared with the lowest rates at which they were available in the market. For instance, in respect of charge 1(ii), the Enquiry Officer has clearly recorded that Malathion 50% EC bought by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.210/- per litre was available for Rs.140/- per litre. In buying 2000 litres of Malathion 50% EC at the rate of Rs.210/- per litre, petitioner had therefore, caused loss of Rs.1,40,000/- to the State Exchequer. The petitioner nowhere disputes it that Malathion 50% EC was not available in the market at the rate of Rs.140/- per litre. No explanation has been given by the petitioner for buying the same at higher rate of Rs.210/- per litre.

¶63

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 8 of 14

¶65

Merely because the said pesticide had been bought at a similar rate in other Districts, does not, in any manner, condone the embezzlement of the petitioner and the same would be no ground to condone the act of the petitioner in causing huge loss to the State Exchequer.

¶66

Similarly in case of charge 1(iv), it was alleged against the petitioner that petitioner had embezzled Rs.3,23,400/- on purchase of Neemincidin pesticides. In this regard, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had not erred in purchasing the said Neemincidin at the rate of Rs.240/- per litre as in other Districts, the very same pesticide had been bought at the rate of Rs.357/- per litre. Again, there is no merit to the said contention of the petitioner as the Enquiry Officer has categorically recorded in the Report that the said pesticide was available at the rate of Rs.93/- per litre. Again, no explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner as to why the said pesticide was not bought at the rate of Rs.93/- per litre. Only contention raised by the petitioner is that the rate of Rs.93/- per litre was as on 06.12.2011; whereas petitioner had purchased 11 months prior thereto on 04.01.2011 at the rate of Rs.240/per litre. After considering the said explanation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has duly taken the rate of Rs.135/- per litre as shown by the company and not Rs.93/- per litre; thereby holding that petitioner had caused loss of Rs.2,31,000/-, and not Rs. 3,23,400 as originally charged, thus holding charge to be partly proved.

¶67

It is established from the record that the Enquiry Officer has examined every aspect of the matter in detail. It is established position in

¶68

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 9 of 14

¶70

law that in disciplinary proceedings, High Court cannot act as Second Court of First Appeal. In holding as above, I rely upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610. The view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Gunasekaran’s case has been followed by this Court in Satish Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 14.10.2025, Neutral Citation No. 2025: PHHC: 141828 . Therefore, it is undisputed position in law that intervention of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is warranted only where findings are arbitrary, disproportionate, procedural illegality or manifest prejudice. Case of the petitioner does not meet any of the said 4 requirements.

¶71

Reliance of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment in P.Gunasekran’s case (supra) is misconceived being based on a piecemeal reading of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has categorically held as under: -

¶72

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of frst appeal. The High Court, ini exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence . The High Court can only see whether:

¶73

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

¶74

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 10 of 14

¶76

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

¶77

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

¶78

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

¶79

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

¶80

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

¶81

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

¶82

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

¶83

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

¶84

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the

¶85

High Court shall not:

¶86

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

¶87

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

¶88

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

¶89

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

¶90

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

¶91

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

¶92

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." (emphasis added)

¶93

Reliance in this regard may also be made to the judgements

¶94

rendered in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Oil

¶95

Corpn. Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 .

¶96

Reference is made to another judgment passed by a

¶97

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Purshutam Goel vs. State of Haryana

¶98

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶99

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 11 of 14

¶100

(Punjab And Haryana); Law Finder Doc Id # 2852822 . The relevant paras

¶101

of the said judgment are as under: -

¶102

“7. The scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is settled law that this Court may only exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the findings recorded in a disciplinary action are arbitrary, disproportionate, tainted with procedural illegality, or manifest prejudice. The Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findings are justified by the material on record, the proceedings were conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, and the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct.

¶103

8. Further reliance may be placed on a Three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 while speaking through Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the following observation,

¶104

"20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521] , Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR

¶105

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶106

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 12 of 14

¶107

22] and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] ."

¶108

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 held that the punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged.”

¶109

Contention of the petitioner that his case had been recommended by the Director General, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana vide Annexure P-6 is also of no help as the Competent Authority is the Government of Haryana for taking action against the petitioner and the Punishing Authority is not bound to accept recommendation/advise of the Director General, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

¶110

Contention of the petitioner that he has been acquitted in the criminal trial is also of no consequence as Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Depot manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. 1997 (2) SCC 699 has observed as follows: -

¶111

"8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any

¶112

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶113

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 13 of 14

¶114

guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law."

¶115

Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide various judgments has settled the Law that departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding can run concurrently and grounds etc. of both the proceedings have no bearing on each other .

¶116

It may also be pointed out that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial vide judgment dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) primarily on the ground that no sanction had been taken from the competent authority before prosecuting the petitioner. As such, acquittal of the petitioner was not on the merits of the matter but on a technical ground that petitioner being public servant could have been prosecuted only after obtaining consent from the competent authority which was not done. Criminal trial is entirely different from departmental proceedings. Furthermore, it is undisputed fact on record that the enquiry report was based after adopting due procedure. No infirmity has been alleged by the petitioner in the enquiry process. It is not disputed that departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can run concurrently as each has no bearing on another. Furthermore, as per Rule 9 of the 1987 Rules,

¶117

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶118

CWP-1471-2021 (O&M) 14 of 14

¶119

petitioner had remedy to challenge the punishment order before approaching this Court. Thus, petitioner has failed to avail appropriate remedy. For this reason, as well, present Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶120

Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the

¶121

present Writ Petition stands dismissed .

¶122

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶123

27.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶124

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Partap Singh Sabharwal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partap Singh Sabharwal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Johar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

P.K. Singla and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Vaisoha Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Komal Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/Ssaraswati Rice Mills Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nancy Vs Haryana Public Service Commission and Another