Arun Kumar CWP - Lod

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No._____________ of 2024
Arun Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Anr.
…Respondents
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Date Pages Court Fee

No.
1. Synopsis
2. List of Dates & Events
3. Civil Writ Petition
4. Annexure P-1 (Chargesheet) 05.01.202

4
5. Annexure P-2 (Reply) 15.02.202

4
6. Annexure P-3 (Impugned Order) 26.04.202

4
7. Annexure P-4 (Order) 11.07.202

3

3

3
10. Vernaculars
11. Annexure P-1 (Chargesheet) 05.01.202

4
12. Annexure P-3 (Impugned Order) 26.04.202

4

3

3
3
16. Aadhar Card
17. Power of Attorney
15. Total Court Fee
Note:
(i) The main law points canvassed in this Writ Petition are in para no. at
pages .
(ii) Relevant Acts/Rules/Statutes:
a) Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

b) Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.
(iii) Similar Case: NA.
(iv) No caveat has been received.
(v) Whether constitutionality of any Act/Rule/Regulations/Notification has

been challenged: No.
(vi) Whether case involves any sitting/former MP/MLA: No.
Chandigarh
Dated:
(Sarthak Gupta)
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
P-1800/2017
PH224753
+91-8095722839
[email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. _______ of 2024
Narinder Pal Singh
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Anr.
… Respondents
COURT FEE
CHANDIGARH
Dated:-
(SARTHAK GUPTA)
ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Petitioner
SYNOPSIS
The present Civil Writ Petition is being preferred under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing the charge sheet dated 05.01.2024 (P-1 at Page ) and the
order dated 26.04.2024 (P-3 at Page ) whereby the petitioner has been
wrongly charge sheeted, that too after his retirement in respect of an incident
which had taken place w.e.f. 08.09.2009 to 11.06.2018, that is, more than four
years before the issuance of the charge sheet dated 29.12.2023, and the
Inquiry Officer has been appointed to hold an inquiry that is in violation of
Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which mandates that
if no departmental proceedings were instituted while the officer was in service,
whether before retirement or during his re-employment, then the same shall
not be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years
before the institution of such proceedings.
Chandigarh Sarthak Gupta

Dated: Advocate for the Petitioner
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Date Particulars
21.09.1988 The Petitioner was appointed as a Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) on

21.09.1988 in the Respondent Department.
10.03.2009 The Petitioner was promoted to Superintending Engineer on

10.03.2009.
18.05.2018 The Petitioner was thereafter promoted as Chief Engineer on

18.05.2018 from which post he retired on 30.11.2022.
08.09.2009 The Respondent raised an allegation post the retirement of the

to
Petitioner for an incident that allegedly took place while the
11.06.2018
Petitioner was serving as the Superintending Engineer in the
Respondent Department from 08.09.2009 to 11.06.2018. Allegedly,
the petitioner did not ensure compliance of the provisions of the
concession agreement with one M/s Rohan Rajdeep Tollways
Private Limited for a Build-Operate-Transfer road namely
Balachaur-Garhshankar-Hoshiarpur-Dasuya road.
30.11.2022 The Petitioner retired from the service as Chief Engineer on

30.11.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
05.01.2024 A charge sheet dated 05.01.2024 was issued to the petitioner in

respect of the alleged incident. (P-1 at Page )
25.01.2024 A copy of the chargesheet was received by the Petitioner on

25.01.2024.
15.02.2024 Petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 15.02.2024 denying all
the allegations leveled against him. (P-2 at Page ). The preliminary
objection is with regard to the applicability of Rule 2.2(b) of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II which mandates that if no
departmental proceedings were instituted while the officer was in
service, whether before retirement or during his re-employment,
then the same shall not be instituted in respect of an event which
took place more than four years before the institution of such
proceedings.
26.04.2024 Respondent No. 1 proceeded to mechanically appoint an Inquiry

Officer vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 (P-3 at Page )
The alleged incident is more than 4 years prior to the date of the
charge sheet. Hence, no departmental proceedings can be initiated
at this stage.
Hence, the present writ petition.
Chandigarh Sarthak Gupta

Dated: Advocate for the Petitioner

Arun Kumar CWP - Lod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arun Kumar CWP - Lod

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arun Kumar CWP - Lod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CWP No._____________ of 2024

State of Punjab and Anr.

Sr. Particulars Date Pages Court Fee

2. List of Dates & Events

3. Civil Writ Petition

4. Annexure P-1 (Chargesheet) 05.01.202

5. Annexure P-2 (Reply) 15.02.202

6. Annexure P-3 (Impugned Order) 26.04.202

7. Annexure P-4 (Order) 11.07.202

8. Annexure P-5 (Order) 17.08.202

9. Annexure P-6 (Order) 03.11.202

11. Annexure P-1 (Chargesheet) 05.01.202

12. Annexure P-3 (Impugned Order) 26.04.202

13. Annexure P-4 (Order) 11.07.202

14. Annexure P-5 (Order) 17.08.202

16. Aadhar Card

17. Power of Attorney

15. Total Court Fee

(ii) Relevant Acts/Rules/Statutes:

a) Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

(iii) Similar Case: NA.

(iv) No caveat has been received.

(v) Whether constitutionality of any Act/Rule/Regulations/Notification has

(vi) Whether case involves any sitting/former MP/MLA: No.

CWP No. _______ of 2024

Narinder Pal Singh

State of Haryana and Anr.

Counsel for the Petitioner

of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or

Inquiry Officer has been appointed to hold an inquiry that is in violation of

if no departmental proceedings were instituted while the officer was in service,

before the institution of such proceedings.

Chandigarh Sarthak Gupta

21.09.1988 The Petitioner was appointed as a Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) on

10.03.2009 The Petitioner was promoted to Superintending Engineer on

18.05.2018 The Petitioner was thereafter promoted as Chief Engineer on

08.09.2009 The Respondent raised an allegation post the retirement of the

Respondent Department from 08.09.2009 to 11.06.2018. Allegedly,

the petitioner did not ensure compliance of the provisions of the

concession agreement with one M/s Rohan Rajdeep Tollways

Private Limited for a Build-Operate-Transfer road namely

30.11.2022 The Petitioner retired from the service as Chief Engineer on

05.01.2024 A charge sheet dated 05.01.2024 was issued to the petitioner in

25.01.2024 A copy of the chargesheet was received by the Petitioner on

15.02.2024 Petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 15.02.2024 denying all

the allegations leveled against him. (P-2 at Page ). The preliminary

objection is with regard to the applicability of Rule 2.2(b) of the

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II which mandates that if no

departmental proceedings were instituted while the officer was in

service, whether before retirement or during his re-employment,

then the same shall not be instituted in respect of an event which

26.04.2024 Respondent No. 1 proceeded to mechanically appoint an Inquiry

Hence, the present writ petition.

Chandigarh Sarthak Gupta

You might also like