Shingar Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Learned counsel for the p arties are ad idem that bot h these w r it petitions are amenable to be decided together, since a common issue arises for considerati o n of this Court. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are taken u p together. However, for a facility o f reference, facts are being culled out from CWP-75661999.

¶15

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

��  -2-

¶17

The petitioner, by way o f instant writ petition, file d under A r ticle 226 of the Constitutio n of India, assails the orde r dated 17/20.05.1999 (Annexure P -8), vide which, he wa s dismiss e d from service.

¶18

ARGUMENTS

¶19

In an endeavour to q u estion the validity of th e aforesai d order, learned Senior coun s el structured his submission s around t h ree core issues.

¶20

Firstly, the dismissal orde r cannot withstand the test o f legality, b eing non-speaking and cry p tic. Elaborating the issue, h e submitte d that admittedly, the petiti o ner was furnished with th e enquiry report, to which, he als o filed detailed objections. Howeve r , authorities did not opt t o address any of the sai d objectio n s, and thus, passed the impugned order in mos t mechani c al and perfunctory mann e r. Further, passing of th e dismiss a l order, after conducting an enquiry, indeed, leads to a quasi-ju d icial function. Accordingly, a ny order, which is bereft o f reasons, is liable to be out-rightly set aside. He laid much thrust t o submit that once the authority is discharging the quasi-judicia l function s , it is obliged to record reas o ns in support of its decision. In this r e gard, he placed reliance up o n the decisions rendered b y the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, 1973 (2) SCC 836; an d S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 594,

¶21

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

��  -3-

¶23

as well a s by this Court in Som Nath Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab and another (CWP-19050-1996, decided on 19.12.1996); an d Dr. H.S. Aneja Vs. State of Punjab (CWP-11130-1999, decided on 09.09.1999).

¶24

Secondly, the Punishing Authority had sought prio r approval of the Punjab Public Servic e Commission for dismissal o f the petiti o ner from service, which wa s granted. However, a copy o f such ap p roval/report was not suppli e d to the petitioner, deprivin g him from submitting objections/r e sponse thereto. In suc h circumst a nces, the petitioner’s right to defend has been acutel y hamper e d. On this aspect, he referre d to the decision in Union of India and others Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, wherein, the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court has hel d that in case, report of th e Union P ublic Service Commissio n is relied upon by th e Disciplin a ry Authority, it is of paramount importance to supply th e same to the employee concerned, else it would tantamount t o violation of principles of natural justice. He further relied upo n verdicts of the Division Benches of this Court in Dr. Vijay Khariwal Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013 (4) SCT 302 , and State of Punjab and others Vs. G.S. Sidhu (LPA No. 3832019, decided on 20.2.2019).

¶25

Adverting to the third issue, he took this Court throug h the decision dated 29.05.1996, ren d ered by a Division of thi s Court in CWP-3050-1996 (M/s Daljit Singh and Brother Vs. The State of Punjab and others), which was filed by none other tha n

¶26

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

��  -4-

¶28

the cont r actor, who had executed the work involved in the presen t lis, for r e lease of payment, which w a s alleged to be withheld o n account of excess payment. Conse q uently, the writ petition wa s allowed, and the amount was directed to be released in favour o f the cont r actor. Referring to the fac t ual aspect of the matter, a s explaine d above, he averred that the basic foundation, upon whic h the charges were levelled agains t the petitioner, has bee n demolis h ed. As an upshot, further p roceedings emanating fro m such all e gations also lose legal sanctity, necessitating this Court t o set asid e the dismissal order, and t o restore the dignity of th e petitioner by reinstating him in servic e . 7) Per contra , learned Stat e counsel, while vociferousl y opposin g the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, asserted that, if the Disciplinary Auth o rity concurs with the reason s assigne d in the enquiry report, it is n o t required to record detaile d reasons, in support of its decision. T o substantiate her plea, sh e placed r e liance on the decisions of t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court i n State of Orrisa Vs.Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779 ; and High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil, 2000 (1) SCC 416. 8) Further, she argued that i n terms of Article 320(3)(c) o f the Constitution of India, consultation with the Punjab Publi c Service C ommission is directory in n ature. While referring to th e observations made in S.K. Kapoor (supra), she submitted that i n case, th e Disciplinary Authority see k s and relies on the advic e

¶29

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

��  -5-

¶31

solicited from the Public Service Co m mission, as decisive materia l against t he delinquent employee, t h e same must be supplied, preceding the final decision. Precis e ly, it is essential, only if th e advice i s foundation of the guilt and punishment. However, in th e instant c a se, though the advice was s ought, but the same was no t made the foundational basis for pa s sing the dismissal order. I n such a situation, the authority concer n ed was not constrained wit h any suc h necessity to supply a cop y of the advise/report to th e petitioner. While putting her submis s ions at rest, she contende d that the decision in M/s Daljit Singh and Brothers (supra), ha s no beari n g on the case of the petition e r, as there was no allegatio n of misa p propriation or embezzlem e nt against the contractor. Further, neither he was signator y to the bills nor to th e measur e ment books, but the petition e r herein stands on a differen t pedestal, being the main culprit, who had undertaken th e measur e ments and sanctioned the bills.

¶32

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶33

Before dealing with t he extensive contention s advance d on behalf of the partie s , a concise recital of th e undisput e d sequence of events, w h ich led the parties to th e current s tage, shall be imperative. 10) The petitioner-Shingar Chand, while posted a s Executiv e Engineer, Central Works Division, Hoshiarpur, w.e.f. Septem b er, 1994, was manning t he duties of In-charge o f construc t ion of an approach road to High Level Bridge over th e

¶34

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶35

��  -6-

¶36

Beas Ri v er, near Sri Hargobindpur. T o take stock of the ongoin g project a nd sanction the pending bill s was also a part of the task. In this w ay, he accorded approval t o the payment of 06 runnin g bills fro m 11^th to 16^th , amounting o f Rs.1.67 crores. However, dissatisfied with the work, the Superintending Enginee r (respon d ent No.2), later on, got measurements re-checke d through a Junior Engineer (respo n dent No.3). Eventually, h e submitte d a measurement report t h at an excess payment o f Rs.1,22, 2 2,602/-, up to the 16^th bill, had been made, which wa s also en d orsed by three Sub Divisio n al Engineers. As a result, a complai n t, in this regard, was made t o the higher authorities, whic h culminat e d into suspension of Shin g ar Chand and M.S. Grewa l (petition e rs), along with Iqbal Singh, Junior Engineer, vide orde r dated 0 7 .12.1995. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 04.03.1996, was ser v ed upon the petitioner, e m bodying the following fou r charges:-

¶37

“Charge No.1 During t h e course of execution of th e work you made payment fo r quantities which were exces s of the quantity at the site this cause excess payment o f Rs.1,22,22,602/- to M/s Dal j it Singh Brothers for which yo u are responsible.

¶38

Charge No. 2. That on t he execution of the said wor k you defrauded the Govt. of an amount of Rs.1,22,22,602/ - in collusion with other offi c ers and M/s Daljit Singh an d Brothers contractor.

¶39

Charge No.3. It was y o ur duty to inspect/check th e work at site before making p ayments for the same; and t o make for same by safeg u arding Govt. interest. By no t

¶40

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶41

��  -7-

¶42

doing so you have caused with serious lapse in discharg e of your duty for which you a r e responsible. Charge No.4. That yo u manipulated submission o f progress in excess of actua l progress at the site and mad e an attempt to misled the Se n ior Officers in this way you ar e personally responsible for r e porting false progress.”

¶43

It is necessary to pause h ere to pen down that a bar e perusal o f the aforesaid charges vi v idly indicates that the sam e revolve around the excess paym e nt of Rs.1,22,22,602/-, a s sanction e d by the petitioner. Resu m ing the factual background, the petitioner, within the stipulated ti m eframe, furnished a reply t o the cha r ge-sheet, which did not fin d favour with the authorities, and hen c e, declared unsatisfactory. 12) While flowing with the pr o cedure, M.S. Guram, Chie f Enginee r , was appointed as Inquir y Officer, vide order date d 29.01.1 9 97. However, subsequently, he was replaced wit h G.S.Ma n n, Superintending Engi n eer, Construction Circle, Ferozep u r, vide order dated 26.06.1 9 97. Thereupon, the enquir y was co n cluded, after affording op p ortunity of hearing to th e parties. A s regards the charge No.1, the Enquiry Officer opine d that th e delinquent had made an excess payment o f Rs.1,13, 8 4,947/- in the 17^th running b i ll. Likewise, he observed tha t charges No.2 and 3, also stood prov e d. So far as charge No.4 i s concern e d, it was not discussed, being not pressed by th e Presenti n g Officer. Hence, per the r e port, the charges were dul y proved a gainst the petitioner. Thereafter, a copy of the enquir y

¶44

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶45

��  -8-

¶46

report w a s supplied to the petitioner, to which, he submitted th e respons e /objections on 13.05.1998 . Ultimately, the impugne d order ca m e into existence, resulting i n to dismissal of the petitione r from se r vice. That is how, the pe t itioner is before this Cour t beseeching indulgence of this Court.

¶47

ANALYSIS

¶48

Ex facie , the exercise o f powers to terminate a n employe e from service is ordinaril y an administrative function. Notably, it assumes the character of quasi-judicial function, if it i s precede d by an enquiry i n to the allegations o f indiscipline/misconduct; dismissal or d er is founded on the enquir y report; a n alysis of objections/respons e ; and strict adherence of th e golden r u le of Audi Alteram Partem . O nce the authority decides t o hold an e nquiry, it is under the statut o ry obligation to examine th e legality o f the charge-sheet, as to whether, due procedure i s followed by the Enquiry Officer, and adherence to the procedura l safegua r d provided under the servic e rules, governing the servic e conditio n s of the delinquent emp l oyee, is ensured or not ? Likewise, the Disciplinary Authority i s also required to assess th e validity o f the enquiry report and ve r acity of evidence led by th e respecti v e parties. Therefore, any o r der, which has been passe d in pursu a nce of such exercise of p o wers, certainly assumes th e quasi-ju d icial function. 14) In the backdrop of the a bovesaid legal position, thi s Court c a n safely conclude that th e impugned dismissal orde r

¶49

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶50

��  -9-

¶51

stems o u t of the quasi-judicial function, and it is required to b e subjecte d to the rigors of judicial s crutiny, accordingly. In th e matter at hand, the Enquiry Officer held that first three charge s stood d u ly proved against the delin q uent, and the fourth charge, as alrea d y observed above, was not pressed by the Presentin g Officer. Thereafter, the enquiry re p ort was served upon th e petitioner, affording him an o p portunity to file writte n objectio n s/response, as also a personal hearing. Whereupon, th e impugned dismissal order was passe d , but none of the objections, as sub m itted by the petitioner, wa s dealt with. Evidently, th e impugned order carries description o f the factual narration only, and on t he basis thereof, the Punis h ing Authority concurred wit h the enquiry report.

¶52

Needless to assert that the reasons always act as a nexus b e tween the facts and the c onclusion arrived at. In th e absence of any reasons, the order under challenge cannot b e consider e d to be a speaking or d er. In this regard, th e observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra), are required to be r e ferred to:-

¶53

“In the context of t he effect upon the rights o f aggrieved persons, as me m bers of a public service wh o are entitled to just and rea s onable treatment, by reason o f protections conferred upo n them by Articles14 and 16 o f the Constitution, which ar e available to them throughou t their service, it was incumb e nt on the Selection Committe e to have stated reasons in a manner which would disclos e how the record of each offi c er superseded stood in relatio n to records of others who w e re to be preferred, particularl y

¶54

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶55

��  -10-

¶56

as this is practically the o n ly remaining visible safeguar d against possible injustice and arbitrariness in makin g selections. If that had been done, facts on service record s of officers considered by t h e Selection Committee woul d have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reason s are the links 'between th e materials on which certai n conclusions are based an d the actual conclusions. The y disclose how the mind is ap p lied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rati o nal nexus between the fact s considered and the conclu s ions reached. Only in this wa y can opinions or decision s recorded be shown to b e manifestly just and reaso n able. We think that it is no t enough to say that prefere n ce should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through by the Selectio n Committee. This is all th a t the Supposed statement o f reasons amounts to. W e , therefore, think that th e mandatory provisions of Re g ulation 5(5) were not complie d with. We think that reli a nce was rightly placed b y respondents on two decisi o ns of this Court relating to th e effect of noncompliance w i th such mandatory provisions. These were: Associated Electrical Industries (India) Pvt.

¶57

Ltd. Calcutta vs. Its Workmen , AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 284 and the Collector of Monghyr & Ors vs. Keshav Prasad Goenka & Ors, (1963) 1 SCR 98.”

¶58

While applying the rati o laid down in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra), the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in its decision in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), unequivocally, reinforces th e vitality o f existence of reasons, in s u pport of the orders. It ha s been he l d that in Indian set up, ther e exists a well settled judicia l trend m a ndating that reasons be ass i gned to every order, even i n administ r ative decisions, particularly, when such decisions affec t

¶59

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶60

��  -11-

¶61

anyone prejudicially. Further, reaso n s have virtually become a s indispen s able a component of d e cision making process a s observin g principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial an d even by a dministrative bodies:-

¶62

“15. The necessity o f giving reason by a body o r authority in support of its decision came up fo r consideration before this C ourt in several cases. Initiall y this Court recognized a s ort of demarcation betwee n administrative orders and q u asi-judicial orders but with th e passage of time the distinct i on between the two got blurre d and thinned out and virtual l y reached a vanishing point i n the judgment of this Court i n A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150. 17. The expression ‘ s peaking order’ was first coine d by Lord Chancellor Earl Ca i rns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ o f Certiorari, referred to order s with errors on the face of th e record and pointed out that a n order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1 8 78-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 3 0 at 40 of the report).

¶63

51. Summarizing th e above discussion, this Cour t holds:

¶64

a. In India the judicial tre n d has always been to recor d reasons, even in administra t ive decisions, if such decision s affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in suppor t of its conclusions.

¶65

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve th e wider principle of justice th a t justice must not only be don e it must also appear to be do n e as well. d. Recording of reasons al s o operates as a valid restrain t on any possible arbitrary e xercise of judicial and quasi - judicial or even administrati v e power.

¶66

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶67

��  -12-

¶68

e. Reasons reassure that d i scretion has been exercised b y the decision maker on relevant grounds and b y disregarding extraneous co n siderations.

¶69

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observin g principles of natural justic e by judicial, quasi-judicial an d even by administrative bodi e s.

¶70

g. Reasons facilitate the p rocess of judicial review b y superior Courts.

¶71

h. The ongoing judicial tre n d in all countries committed t o rule of law and constitutio n al governance is in favour o f reasoned decisions base d on relevant facts. This i s virtually the life blood of ju d icial decision making justifyin g the principle that reason is t h e soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judi c ial opinions these days can b e as different as the judges a n d authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve o n e common purpose which is t o demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have bee n objectively considered. Thi s is important for sustaining th e litigants’ faith in the justice d elivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicia l accountability and transpar e ncy.

¶72

k. If a Judge or a quasi-j u dicial authority is not candi d enough about his/her deci s ion making process then it i s impossible to know whethe r the person deciding is faithfu l to the doctrine of pre c edent or to principles o f incrementalism.

¶73

l. Reasons in support of d e cisions must be cogent, clea r and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stam p reasons’ is not to be equat e d with a valid decision makin g process.

¶74

m. It cannot be doubted th a t transparency is the sine qu a non of restraint on abuse o f judicial powers. Transparenc y in decision making not only makes the judges and decisio n makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject t o

¶75

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶76

��  -13-

¶77

broader scrutiny. (See Davi d Shapiro in Defence of Judicia l Candor (1987) 100 Harwar d Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates fro m the broad doctrine of fairne s s in decision making, the sai d requirement is now virtuall y a component of human right s and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. Se e (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein th e Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention o f Human Rights which requ i res, “adequate and intelligen t reasons must be given for j u dicial decisions”. o. In all common law juris d ictions judgments play a vita l role in setting up preceden t s for the future. Therefore, fo r development of law, requir e ment of giving reasons for th e decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Du e Process”.

¶78

In a quest to further el u cidate the subject issue, a Larger Bench in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) harmoniously carved ou t that assigning reasons in support o f every order is integral t o decision making process. The obj e ct underlying the rules o f natural j u stice is to prevent the misc a rriage of justice, and secur e fair play in action. Therefore, the requirement of reasons for it s decision by an administrative auth o rity exercising quasi-judicia l function s achieves this object b y excluding chances o f arbitrari n ess and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process o f decision - making. The relevant o bservations are extracte d hereinb e low:-

¶79

“ 38. The object u n derlying the rules of natura l justice "is to prevent misc a rriage of justice" and secur e "fair play in action." A s pointed out earlier th e

¶80

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶81

��  -14-

¶82

requirement about record i ng of reasons for its decisio n by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicia l functions achieves this o b ject by excluding chances o f arbitrariness and ensurin g a degree of fairness in th e process of decision-ma k ing. Keeping in view th e expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, th a t the requirement to recor d reason can be regarded as one of the principles o f natural justice which g o vern exercise of power b y administrative authorities. The rules of natural justic e are not embodied rules. T he extent of their applicatio n depends upon the pa r ticular statutory framewor k whereunder jurisdiction h as been conferred on th e administrative authority. W ith regard to the exercise o f a particular power by an administrative authorit y including exercise of judi c ial or quasi- judicial function s the legislature, while co n ferring the said power, ma y feel that it would not be in the larger public interest tha t the reasons for the order passed by the administrativ e authority be recorded in the order and b e communicated to the a g grieved party and it ma y dispense with such a re q uirement. It may do so b y making an express prov i sion to that affect as thos e contained in the Administ r ative Procedure Act, 1946 o f U.S.A. and the Admin i strative Decisions (Judicia l Review) Act, 1977 of A u stralia whereby the order s passed by certain speci fi ed authorities are exclude d from the ambit of the e n actment. Such an exclusio n can also arise by necessary implication from the natur e of the subject matter, the s cheme and the provisions o f the enactment. The publi c interest underlying such a provision would outweigh t the salutary purpose serve d by the requirement to r e cord the reasons. The sai d

¶83

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶84

��  -15-

¶85

requirement cannot, the r efore, be insisted upon i n such a case.

¶86

39. For the reas o ns aforesaid, it must b e concluded that except in c ases where the requiremen t has been dispensed wit h expressly or by necessar y implication, an administrative authority exercisin g judicial or quasi-judicial f u nctions is required to recor d the reasons for its decisio n .”

¶87

On the touchstone of t h e abovesaid guiding lega l propositi o ns, this Court is of the c onsidered opinion that th e decision - making authority erred, n o t only by failing to recor d reasons but also by neglecting to c o mprehend and address th e objectio n s filed by the petitioner. 19) At this juncture, this C ourt must advert to th e contenti o n advanced on behalf of the State that mere concurrenc e with th e enquiry report suffices, a nd therefore, there is n o require m ent to record further r e asons. Nevertheless, th e observations of the Hon’ble Suprem e Court, as extracted above, affirms t h e view of this Court that n o weight can be accorded t o such a b a ld assertion. In fact, exten d ing an opportunity to furnis h objectio n s to the enquiry report is not a mere formality or a mechani c al process. Rather, it ens u res eradication of even th e remotes t possibility of arbitrariness a nd miscarriage of justice. I n the abs e nce of the reasons, the high e r authority would not be abl e to discern the validity of the order.

¶88

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶89

��  -16-

¶90

The second limb of the submissions of learned counse l for the p e titioner was that petitioner has been prejudiced, owing t o non-sup p ly of the report, vide w hich, the Public Servic e Commis s ion concurred with a view to dismiss his services.

¶91

Before delving into this is s ue, it would be expedient t o have a g lance at the observations in S.K.Kapoor (supra), that i n case, re p ort of the Union Public Ser v ice Commission is not relie d upon by the Disciplinary Authority, i t would not be essential t o supply t h e same to the delinquent. However, if such a report i s relied u p on, then the same must b e supplied in advance to th e concern e d employee, otherwise, th e re will be infraction of th e principle s of natural justice:-

¶92

“ There may be a case where the report of th e Union Public Service Co m mission is not relied upon b y the disciplinary authority a nd in that case it is certainl y not necessary to supply a copy of the same to th e concerned employee. Ho w ever, if it is relied upon, the n a copy of the

¶93

same must be supplied i n advance to the concerne d employee, otherwise, th e re will be violation of th e principles of natural justic e .”

¶94

On the anvil of the abov e said pivotal observations, le t us, onc e again, test the impugned order from a perspective, i.e., as to w h ether, the Disciplinary Auth o rity relied upon the approva l of Punj a b Public Service Commi s sion, while arriving at a conclusi o n to dismiss the petitioner fr o m service or not?

¶95

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶96

��  -17-

¶97

In context of the matter i n issue, as referred to above, the opin i on solicited by the Depart m ent from the Public Servic e Commis s ion was not relied upon t o reach the conclusion tha t petitioner was required to be di s missed from service. Th e operativ e reasoning was to the effect that ‘ in consideration of fact s of the c a se and agreeing to the In q uiry report’ . In nutshell, th e Authorit y had only relied upon the f a ctual sequence of the cas e and th e enquiry report. Therefo r e, non-furnishing of suc h advice/c o mments to the petitioner ha s not caused any prejudice t o him, in a ny way. The conclusive p o rtion of the impugned orde r reads as under:-

¶98

“In view of findings of the Inquiry Officer an i n consideration of fact of the case, he misused hi s powers as a Governme n t officer and guilty of gros s misconduct in causing lo s s to government excheque r to the extent of such a h uge amount as responsibl e government officer and a decision had been take n tentatively to dismiss Shri Shingar Chand from service. The Punjab Public Servi c e Commission Patiala wa s also consulted. They hav e expressed their consent t o the dismissal of the s ervice of Shingar Chan d Executive Engineer vide t h eir letter No.DS-196/A.7/11 3 dated 5.2.99.

¶99

In consideration of f a cts of the case and agreein g to the Inquiry report Gov e rnor of Punjab is pleased t o order dismissal of Shri Shinga Chand, Executiv e Engineer (under suspe n sion) P.W.D. (B&R) fro m Punjab Government Servi c e with immediate effect.”

¶100

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶101

��  -18-

¶102

A bare perusal of ab o ve extracted part of th e impugned order makes it clear tha t there is not even a singl e stateme n t that the impugned deci s ion is predicated upon th e advice s o licited from the Public Serv i ce Commission, therefore, i t does no t breach the ratio of the la w laid down in S.K. Kapoor (supra). As a sequel of the aboves a id deliberations, this Court i s of the a f firmed opinion that the imp u gned order, indeed, passe s the test o f legality, on this aspect. 25) The third argument rais e d before this Court is no t required to be delved into, at this stage. For, this Court ha s already h eld that the order under challenge is non-speaking an d cryptic, and therefore, the same i s required to be set aside. Howeve r , it is imperative to note that both the petitioners hav e already a ttained the age of superan n uation, therefore, the praye r qua rei n statement and quashing th e order of suspension, ha s already b ecome redundant. 26) In the wake of the aforementioned discussion, support e d with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the impugned orders in both these petitions are set aside . Consequ e ntly, both the matters ar e remitted to the authority concerned f or taking decision afresh, i n the light o f the observations recorded hereinabove. 27) However, as the matter h as spanned over more tha n three decades, and the petitioners m ust be at their twilight days, therefor e , a Mandamus is passed up o n the authority concerned to,

¶103

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶104

��  -19-

¶105

after aff o rding due opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners o r their au t horised representatives, as the case may be, on th e objectio n s already filed by them, pa s s a speaking order, within a period of six weeks from the recei p t of a certified copy of thi s order.

¶106

Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of, in the above terms.

¶107

A photocopy of this ord e r be placed on the file o f connect e d case.

¶108

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

¶109

06.04.2026 Ak Shar m a

¶110

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶111

AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Shingar Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shingar Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harsit Jain Vs Deputy Commissioner Rohtak Cum Appellate and Ors.

Municipal Council Barnala Vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehar Chand Mahajan Dav Cen.Public School Vs Polc Gurdaspur etc.

Ekambeer Singh Toor Vs Punjab Univeristy and Others

Subash Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others