Premium

Punjab and Haryana High Court ends decade-long legal battle, quashes penalties on 2 Punjab engineers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said the common proceedings order ignored safeguards and left engineers “condemned unheard”.

4 min readChandigarhUpdated: Feb 9, 2026 05:59 PM IST

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed two linked writ petitions filed by Rajinder Singh and Gurwinder Pal Singh against the Punjab Government and another respondent, by a common order dated January 30, 2026.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the officer who issued the punishment order was not the disciplinary authority. (Express Archive/Vishal Srivastav)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside disciplinary penalties imposed on two Punjab Government engineers, holding that the common proceedings against them were vitiated by a “comprehensive failure” to follow mandatory rules and principles of natural justice.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed two linked writ petitions filed by Rajinder Singh and Gurwinder Pal Singh against the Punjab Government and another respondent, by a common order dated January 30, 2026.

The petitions, CWP-5173-2017 and CWP-2275-2020, were argued by Advocate Ashok Bhardwaj for the petitioners, with Additional Advocate General Vikas Sonak appearing for the State.

The court quashed the punishment order dated May 16, 2016, and the appellate order dated January 25, 2017, which had imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect. Justice Brar held that both writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the officer who issued the punishment order was not the disciplinary authority and therefore lacked the competence to issue the impugned orders, thereby depriving the petitioners of their statutory right of appeal.

Punjab Government’s stand

The Punjab Government submitted that the punishing authority considered the chief engineer’s opinion and adopted a lenient view, imposing only a stoppage of two increments, with future effect. It argued that although the inquiry officer found no mala fide intention and no loss to the department, he still held the petitioners guilty of non-compliance with the conditions imposed by the chief engineer and negligence in supervision.

The Punjab Government further contended that the case was processed as a common proceeding under Rule 12 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, which permits disciplinary action against two or more employees in a joint proceeding by the highest disciplinary authority, with the consent of the other authorities concerned.

Story continues below this ad

However, the court noted that the government was unable to controvert the fact that no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners regarding the chief engineer’s opinion.

How the court read Rule 12

Justice Brar observed that Rule 12 establishes a strictly conditional framework for common disciplinary proceedings based on express authorisation and jurisdictional consent.

The court said that if the same authority has the power to dismiss all employees, it may act unilaterally. If different authorities hold such power, only the highest may initiate proceedings, and only with the others’ explicit consent, making consent a jurisdictional prerequisite.

The court said any valid common proceedings order must specify the punishing authority, the penalties that authority can impose, and the applicable procedure. Failure to meet any condition invalidates the proceeding.

Story continues below this ad

Key reasons for quashing the orders

Justice Brar held that the common proceedings order failed on multiple mandatory counts and listed several defects, including:

absence of proof of mandatory consent from competent authorities;
failure to formally designate a punishing authority;
failure to specify permissible penalties;
absence of defined procedural framework;
reliance on an undisclosed opinion without allowing rebuttal;
issuance of penalty without a prior show cause notice;
dissent from the inquiry officer’s report without recorded reasons; and
violation of natural justice principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Also Read | ‘Too long a delay’: Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to refix pay of Punjab Mandi Board employee

The court reiterated that when a disciplinary authority disagrees with an inquiry report, it must record tentative reasons and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to respond. It also recalled the principle that an order without reasons is unsustainable in a system based on the rule of law.

Manraj Grewal Sharma

Manraj Grewal Sharma is a senior journalist and the Resident Editor of The Indian Express in Chandigarh, where she leads the newspaper’s coverage of north India’s most politically and institutionally significant regions. From Punjab and Haryana to Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, she oversees reporting at the intersection of governance, law, politics and society. She also reports on the diaspora, especially in Canada and the US. With a career spanning journalism across several countries, academia and international development, Manraj brings a rare depth of perspective to regional reporting. She is widely regarded as a leading chronicler of Punjab’s contemporary history and socio-political evolution, particularly its long shadow of militancy, federal tensions and identity politics. Her book, Dreams after Darkness, remains a definitive account of the militancy years and their enduring aftermath. Professional Background & Expertise A gold medalist in mass communication and a post-graduate in English literature, Manraj has a multifaceted career spanning journalism, academia, and international development. She was also awarded a fellowship by National Foundation of India and did several in-depth pieces on Manipur. Internationally, she has reported from Israel, US, UK, Myanmar, and Mauritius Her key focus areas include: Regional Politics, History, Agriculture, Diaspora, and Security. Of late, she has started focusing on Legal & Judicial Affairs: Much of her recent work involves reporting on high-stakes cases in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ranging from environmental policy to civil rights. International Consulting: She previously served as a consulting editor for the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network and a publishing consultant for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Manila. Academia: For five years, she was the managing editor of Gender, Technology and Development, a peer-reviewed international journal at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reportage focuses heavily on judicial interventions and regional governance: 1. Environment & Governance "‘NGT can’t test legality of policy’: HC hears challenge to Punjab’s ‘Green Habitat’ plan" (Dec 22, 2025): Covering a critical legal battle over whether the National Green Tribunal has the authority to strike down a state policy regularizing farmhouses on delisted forest land. "High court pulls up Punjab poll panel over audio clip probe" (Dec 10, 2025): Reporting on judicial concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of local body elections. 2. Legal Rights & Social Welfare "HC issues notice to Punjab, Haryana over delay in building old age homes" (Dec 22, 2025): Reporting on a contempt petition against top officials for failing to establish government-run homes for the elderly as promised in 2019. "Victims can appeal acquittals in sessions court without seeking special leave" (Dec 19, 2025): Highlighting a significant procedural shift in criminal law following a Supreme Court ruling. "HC upholds benefits for Punjab FCI officer acquitted in 20-year-old bribery case" (Dec 19, 2025): A report on the concept of "honourable acquittal" and its impact on employee benefits. 3. Human Rights & Identity "As Punjab denies parole to MP Amritpal Singh, HC asks it to submit ‘foundational material’" (Dec 1, 2025): Covering the legal proceedings regarding the radical preacher and sitting MP's request to attend Parliament. "Protecting life paramount: HC backs Muslim woman in live-in after verbal divorce" (Nov 6, 2025): Analyzing judicial protections for personal liberty in the context of traditional practices. Signature Beats Manraj is recognized for her ability to decode complex judicial rulings and relate them to the everyday lives of citizens. Whether it is a 30-year-old land battle in Fazilka or the political implications of Kangana Ranaut’s candidacy in Mandi, her writing provides deep historical and regional context. Contact @grewal_sharma on X manrajgrewalsharma on Instagram ... Read More

Loading Recommendations...

Mar 05: Latest News

Live Blog