CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 752 of 2025 (O&M)

Reserved on :17.02.2025

Pronounced on: 23.05.2025

Sudhir Parmar …..Petitioner

versus

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JU STICE 

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL, JUDGE

Present : Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate and

Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

SHEEL NAGU,  CHIEF JUSTICE  

The power of judicial review under Article 226 read with Article

227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by assailing the Articles of Charge

dated 24.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus

to allow the petitioner, who has been charge sheeted on 24.07.2023 vide

Annexure P-1, to submit a written statement of defence (reply) to the said

charge sheet.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 2

2. The petitioner, who is a member of Superior Judicial Services of

the State of Haryana substantively holding the post of Additional District &

Sessions Judge, was placed under suspension on 27.04.2023 while being

posted at Kurukshetra. It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings against

the petitioner for imposition of major penalty were initiated on 24.07.2023 by

issuance of a charge sheet. For various reasons as explained in the petition, the

petitioner alleges that he could not submit the written statement of defence to

the charge sheet served upon him on 24.07.2023 and therefore by way of this

petition seeks a direction to the Enquiry Officer to allow the petitioner to

submit written statement of defence at a stage when the first witness of the

employer has been examined in the hearing on 23.01.2025.

3. The skeletal facts necessary for adjudication of the issues

involved are delineated below in a tabular form chronologically: -

PARA/PAGE/

DATE

EVENTS/FACTS

2001 Joined Haryana Judicial Department as

Judicial Magistrate.

2016 Promoted to Haryana Superior Judicial

Services.

Page 87

para 3

20.04.2023

A confidential letter received from DG, Anti$

Corruption Bureau, Haryana, regarding FIR

No.06 dt. 17.04.2023, u/Sec. 7, 8, 11, 13

Prevention of Corruption Act & 120$B IPC,

P.S, ACB, Panchkula against Petitioner (then

ADG, Presiding Officer, Special Judge, CBI

Court, Panchkula).

Page 87

para 3

27.04.2023

Petitioner placed under suspension (with

headquarters at Kurukshet ra) and

disciplinary proceedings for imposing major

penalty u/Rule 4(b) contemplated.

Page 20 [P&1]

24.07.2023

Charge&sheet u/Rule 7 of Haryana Civil

Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016

served and opportunity to inspect

records/documents given.

Pg 87

para 4

10.08.2023

Petitioner arrested by ED (remained in

custody till 02.11.2023).

Pg 26 [P&2]

(no date)

District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on

22.08.2023 forwarded the request of the

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 3

petitioner to grant him extension of time to

file written statement of defence at least 20

days after his release from the custody.

Page 88

para 4

02.11.2023

Bail granted to the petitioner.

Page 88

para 4

20.11.2023

One week time was granted by the

Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee (DC) to

submit written statement of defence.

Page 28

[P&3]

22.11.2023

Respondent No.2 asked petitioner to submit

Written statement of defence.

Page 88

para 5

24.11.2023

Another request by petitioner seeking copies

of certain documents for filing written

statement of defence.

Pg 88 para 5

14.12.2023

It was informed that documents relied upon

in the charge$sheet have already been

supplied to him with the charge$sheet and

opportunity to inspect the records was given.

Pg 88 para 6

21.12.2023

The petitioner requested for permission to

inspect the relevant record.

On the same day, the petitioner was allowed

and he partly inspected the record as being

voluminous, petitioner sought more time to

file written statement of defence. [1

st

INSPECTION]

Page 88

Para 6

15.01.2024/

16.01.2024

Time granted to the petitioner till 21.01.2024

to file written statement of defence.

Page 31 [P&4]

19.01.2024

Another request for providing more time to file

written statement of defence.

Page 89

para 7

06.03.2024

Time was granted till 21.03.2024 to file

written statement of defence.

Page 89

para 7

21.03.2024

Petitioner again inspected the record.

[2

nd

INSPECTION]

Page 33 [P&5]

13.05.2024/

19.05.2024

Since no response of [P&4] was alleged to be

received, thus, request to seek copies of same

documents for filing written statement of

defence was made by petitioner.

Page 89

para 8

31.05.2024

Petitioner asked to submit written statement

of defence to the charge$sheet within fortnight

by the Officiating Chairman of the Vigilance

Disciplinary Committee as the requisite

documents were already supplied to him with

liberty to seek information regarding record

from the concerned Sessions Division at his

own level.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 4

Page 36 [P&6]

09.07.2024

Another similar request seeking copies of

same documents to file written statement of

defence was made by the petitioner.

Page 89

para 9

02.09.2024

Request [P&6] was rejected by Disciplinary

Committee being without merit.

The Vigilance Disciplinary Committee

recommended a Regular Departmental

Enquiry and Sh.Atul Kasana, District &

Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and Dr. Ajit Atri,

Addl District & Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar,

Mohali, was appointed as the Presenting

Officer.

Page 90

para 10

23.09.2024

Sh. Atul Kasana, District & Sessions Judge,

SAS Nagar, Mohali, requested for permission

to recuse, being class fellow for five years and

have friendly and common relations.

Page 90

paras 10 & 11

03.10.2024

Disciplinary Committee recommended

Sh. Nirbhow Singh Gill, District & Sessions

Judge, Jalandhar as the Enquiry Officer and

Sh. Dharminder Paul Singla, Additional

District Judge, Jalandhar as the Presenting

Officer.

19.10.2024 Both officers appointed and the enquiry is

under progress.

Page 45 [P&9]

07.01.2025

Written statement of defence attached.

Page 41 [P&7]

08.01.2025

Request made to Respondent No.1$Registrar

General, Punjab and Haryana High Court to

grant permission to file written statement of

defence to the articles of charges.

Page 44 [P&8]

08.01.2025

Permission for engaging a counsel to

represent the petitioner in the enquiry

proceedings was made.

Page 14

para 13

14.01.2025

Date fixed for hearing before Enquiry officer

and 5 important witnesses were summoned.

23.01.2025 Ist witness examined.

After

23.01.2025

till date

Examination of last witness out of 19

witnesses is going on.

23.05.2025 Next date of hearing for defence evidence.

4. From the aforesaid tabular illustration, it appears that the

petitioner has missed the bus as regards the right to file a written statement of

defence to the charge sheet. However, to adjudicate the said right of the

petitioner, the facts stated above have to be tested on the anvil of the statutory

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 5

provisions governing the proceedings in disciplinary proceedings for major

penalty. The petitioner being a member of superior judicial services of the

State of Haryana in matters of disciplinary proceedings is governed by the

Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (for brevity ‘2016

Rules’). Rule 7 of 2016 Rules lays down the procedure, while imposing major

penalty, which is reproduced hereinbelow in toto:-

7. Procedure for imposing major penalty.—

(A) Inquiry before imposition of major penalty─

(1) No order of imposing a major penalty shall be passed

against a person to whom these rules are applicable

unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of

showing cause against the action proposed to be taken

in regard to him.

(2) Whenever the punishing authority is of the opinion that

there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any

imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a

Government employee, it may itself inquire into, or appoint

under this rule or under the provisions of the Public

Servants (Inquiries) Act. 1850, as the case may be, an

authority to inquire into the truth thereof:

Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual

harassment within the meaning of rule 6 of the Haryana

Civil Services (Government Employees’ Conduct) Rules,

2016, the complaints committee established in each

department or officer for inquiring into such complaints

shall be deemed to be the inquiry officer appointed by the

punishing authority for the purpose of these rules and the

complaints committee shall hold, if separate procedure has

not been prescribed for the complaints committee for

holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual

harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance

with the procedure laid down in these rules.

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a

Government employee under this rule, the punishing

authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up─

(i) the substance of imputation of misconduct or

misbehaviour into definite and distinct statement of

charges;

(ii) a statement of imputation of misconduct or

misbehaviour in support of each statement of charge, which

shall contain─

(a) a statement of all relative facts including any

admission or confession made by the Government

employee;

(b) a list of documents by which and a list of

witnesses by whom, the statement of charges are

proposed to be sustained.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 6

(4) The punishing authority shall deliver or cause to be

delivered to the Government employee, a copy of the

statement of charges, the statement of the imputations of

misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of document and

witness by which each statement of charge is proposed to

be sustained and shall require the Government employee to

submit, within such time as may be specified (not more

than 45 days), a written statement of his defence and to

state whether he desires to be heard in person.

(5) In case the competent authority is satisfied with the

written statement of defence given by the charged person, it

may drop the charge$sheet without resorting to the

procedure of conducting enquiry. Similarly, if the competent

authority after considering the written statement of defence

of the charged person is of the opinion that awarding of

minor punishment shall meet the end of justice, then the

authority competent may award minor punishment without

following the procedure of conducting the enquiry.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub$rule (5), on receipt of the

written statement of defence, the punishing authority may─

(i) itself inquire into such of the statement of charges

as are not admitted; or,

(ii) if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint

under sub$rule (2), an inquiry officer for the

purpose; and

(iii) where all the statement of charges have been

admitted by the Government employee in his written

statement of defence, the punishing authority shall

record its findings on each charge after taking such

evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the

manner laid down in rule 7(C);

(7) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the

charged person within the specified period or extended

period, if any, allowed by the punishing authority after due

consideration, the punishing authority may itself inquire

into the statement of charges or may, if it considers it

necessary to do so, appoint under sub$rule (2), inquiry

officer for the purpose.

(8) Where the punishing authority itself inquires into any

articles of charge(s) or appoints an inquiry officer for

holding an inquiry into such charge(s), it shall by an order

appoint a Government employee or a legal practitioner, to

be known as the ‘Presenting Officer’ to present on its behalf

the case in support of the statement of charges.

(9) The punishing authority shall, where it is not itself the

inquiry officer, forward to the inquiry officer─

(i) a copy of the articles of charge(s) and the statement

of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;

(ii) a copy of written statement of defence, if any

submitted by the charged person;

(iii) a copy of the statement of witnesses, if any,

referred to in subrule (3);

(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents

required to be delivered to the charged person under

sub$rule (4);

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 7

(v) a copy of the order appointing the Presenting

Officer.

(10) The charged person shall appear in person before the

inquiry officer on such day and at such time within ten

working days from date of receipt by him of the statement of

charges and the statement of the imputations of

misconduct or misbehaviour as the inquiry officer may, by a

notice in writing, specify in this behalf, or within such

further time not exceeding ten days, as the inquiry officer

may allow.

(11) The inquiry officer appointed to conduct enquiry shall

serve maximum two notices to the charged person to appear

before him for presenting his case. In case the charged

person does not appear after the service of two notices, the

inquiry officer shall be competent to proceed ex$parte in the

matter. However, after considering the circumstances to be

recorded, the inquiry officer may serve third notice also.

(12) If the charged person refuses or omits to plead, the

inquiry officer shall require the Presenting Officer to

produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove th e

statement of charges, and shall adjourn the case to a later

date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that

the charged person may for the purpose of preparing h is

defence—

(i) inspect within five days of the order or within such

further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring

authority may allow, the documents specified in the list

referred to in sub$rule (3);

(ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf;

(iii) apply orally or in writing for the supply of copies of the

statements, if any recorded, of witness mentioned in the list

referred to in sub$rule (3), in which case the inquiring

authority shall furnish to him such copies as early as

possible and in any case not later than three days before

the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on

behalf of the punishing authority; and

(iv) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such

further time not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring

authority may allow for the discovery or production of any

documents which is in the possession of Government, but

not mentioned in the list referred to in sub$rule (3) and the

Government employee shall also indicate the relevance of

the document required by him to be discovered or produced

by the Government.

(13) The person against whom a charge is being enquired

into, shall be allowed to obtain the assistance of a

Government employee or a retired Government employee if

he so desires, in order to produce his defence before the

inquiry officer. If the charge or charges are likely to result in

the dismissal of the person from the service of the

Government, such person may, with the sanction of the

inquiry officer, be represented by counsel:

Provided that if in any enquiry, counsel is engaged

on behalf of any department of Government, the person

against whom the charge or charges are being enquired

into, shall also be entitled to engage counsel:

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 8

Provided further that the assistance of a particular

Government employee shall be allowed only if the inquiry

officer is satisfied that he is of such rank as is appropriate

in the circumstances of the case and that he may be spared

by the department concerned for that purpose.

(14) If the charged person, who has not admitted any of the

statement of charges in his written statement of defence, or

has not submitted any written statement of the defence,

appears before the inquiry officer, such officer shall ask him

whether he is guilty or has any defence to make. If he

pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge(s), the Inquiry

Officer shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the

signature of the charged person thereon.

(15) The Inquiry Officer shall give to the charged person a

finding of guilt in respect of those statement(s) of charges to

which the charged person pleads guilty.

(16) The persons charged shall, subject to the conditions

described in sub$rule (3) be entitled to cross examine the

witness, to give evidence in person and to have such

witness called, as he may wish; provided that the officer

conducting the enquiry may for reasons to be recorded in

writing, refuse to call any witness. The proceedings shall

contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of

the findings and the grounds thereof:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame

any additional charge when it is proposed to take action in

respect of any statement of allegation made by person

charged in the course of his defence:

Provided further that the provisions of the

foregoing sub$rule shall not apply where any major penalty

is proposed to be imposed upon a person on the ground of

conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal

charge; or where an authority empowered to dismiss or

remove him, or reduce him in rank is satisfied that, for

some reasons to be recorded by him in writing, it is not

reasonably practicable to give him an opportunity of

showing cause against the action proposed to be taken

against him, or wherein the interest of the security of the

state it is considered not expedient to give to that person

such an opportunity.

(17) As per the provisions of the Punjab Departmental

Enquiries (Powers) Act, 1955 (Punjab Act 8 of 1955), the

officer conducting enquiry under these rules shall be

competent to exercise the same powers for summoning of

witnesses and for compelling the production of documents

as are exercisable by a commission appointed for an

enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act

37 of 1850);

(18) If any question arises whether it is reasonably

practicable to give to any person an opportunity to defend

himself under sub$rule (2), the decision thereon of the

punishing authority shall be final.

(19) Where any person has made a statement on oath, in

evidence before any criminal or civil court, in any case, in

which charged person was party and had full opportunity to

cross$examine such person and where it is intended to

prove the same facts as deposed to by such person in such

statement in any inquiry under the Public Servants

(Inquiries) Acts, 1850, shall not be necessary to call such

person to give oral evidence in corroboration of that

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 9

statement. The certified copy of the statement previously

made by him in any such case may be read as part of the

evidence:

Provided that the officer conducting the inquiry

shall, in interest of justice order the production of witness

in person either for further examination or for further cross$

examination by persons charged.

(20) The charged person shall not be allowed, except at

discretion of the inquiry officer, to be exercised in the

interest of justice to call as a witness in his defence any

person whose statement has already been recorded and

whom he has had opportunity to cross$examine, or whos e

previous statement has been admitted in the manner herein

provided.

Note 1.─ Charges need not necessarily be framed in relation 

only to specific incidents or acts of misconduct. When reports 

received  against  an  officer  or  a  preliminary  enquiry  show 

that his general behaviour has been such as to be unfitting to 

his  position,  or  that  he  has  failed  to  reach  or  maintain a 

reasonable  standard  of  efficiency  he  may  be  charged 

accordingly,  and  a  finding  of  such  a  charge  may  be  valid 

ground for the infliction of any authorized punishment, which 

may be considered suitable in the circumstances of the case. 

It  shall  be  necessary  to  communicate  the  charges  of 

misbehaviour or of inefficiency or of both as the case may be, 

to the officer/official concerned but statement which is to be 

communicated to the officer/official in support of the charges 

need  not  specify  particular  acts  of  misconduct.  It  shall  be 

sufficient in the statement to give the list of the report on the 

basis of which misbehaviour or inefficiency is alleged. 

Note 2.─ Any  person  compulsorily  retired  from  service  in 

accordance with the procedure prescribed by this rule shall 

be granted such compensation, pension gratuity, or Provident 

Fund benefits  as may have been  admissible  to him had he 

been discharged from service due to the abolition of his post 

without any alternative suitable employment being provided, 

under the rules applicable to his service or post on the date of 

such retirement. 

(B) Submission of inquiry report—

(1) After the close of the enquiry, the inquiry officer shall

prepare his report which inter$alia indicate the following:$

(a) statement of charges and the allegations framed against

the Government employees;

(b) his explanation, if any;

(c) oral and documentary evidence produced in support of

the charges;

(d) oral and documentary evidence led in defence;

(e) findings on the charges.

(2) The inquiry officer shall give clear findings on each of the

charges so that the Government employee shall know from

the findings on what ground he has been found guilty. Each

finding shall be supported by evidence and reasons thereof.

The findings are in the nature of a report to the competent

authority to enable it to pass final orders. Such findings are

to assist but do not bind him. He himself alone has to come

to a final decision. Moreover, the inquiry officer shall not in

any case recommend or propose any penalty.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 10

(3) The inquiry officer, where it is not itself the punishing

authority, shall forward to the punishing authority the

records of inquiry which shall include─

(a) the report prepared by it under rule 7(B)(1);

(b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by

the charged person;

(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the

course of the inquiry;

(d) written briefs, if any, filed by the presenting officer or the

charged person or both during the course of the inquiry;

and

(e) the orders, if any, made by the punishing authority and

the inquiry officer in regard to the inquiry.

(C) Action on inquiry report―

(1) After the enquiry against a charged person has been

completed, the punishing authority shall forward or cause

to be forwarded a copy of the enquiry report, and where the

punishing authority does not agree with the enquiry report

or any part thereof, the reasons for such disagreement shall

be communicated along with the enquiry report, to the

charged person who may submit, if he so desires, a written

representation to the punishing authority within a period of

one month from the date of such communication.

(2) The punishing authority shall consider the

representation, if any, submitted by the charged person and

record its findings before proceeding further in the matter

as specified in rule 4.”

5. It may not be out of place to mention here that Rule 7 of 2016

Rules is a manifestation of the constitutional right granted to a civil post holder

for affording reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard before one

of the major penalties prescribed in Rule 4 of 2016 Rules is imposed.

5.1 A close scrutiny of the aforesaid Rule 7 of 2016 Rules reveals that

whenever disciplinary proceedings are proposed to be held against a

government employee, the disciplinary authority is obliged to deliver a

statement of charges to the delinquent employee alongwith list of documents

and witnesses by which each statement of charges is proposed to be sustained.

5.2 Rule 7-A(4) of 2016 Rules corresponding obliges the delinquent

employee to submit written statement of defence to the charge sheet within an

outer limit of 45 days.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 11

5.3 In the instant case, the Articles of Charge was served upon the

petitioner on 24.07.2023 and thus the petitioner was required to submit his

written statement of defence latest by 07.09.2023. Admittedly, the petitioner

failed to submit his written statement of defence by 07.09.2023.

5.4 Pertinently the petitioner remained in judicial custody from

10.08.2023 to 02.11.2023 in connection with FIR No. 6 dated 17.04.2023

lodged against him under Sections 7,8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at

Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Panchkula. Petitioner was, however,

released on bail on 02.11.2023. Therefore, the time period of 45 days for

submission of written statement of defence would start running after serving of

charge sheet on 24.07.2023 till his arrest i.e. from 25.07.2023 till 09.08.2023,

which is 16 days and the remaining after the release of petitioner from judicial

custody i.e. 02.11.2023. Thus, calculated from 24.07.2023, 45 days period

expired on 01.12.2023 (16 days + 29 days = 45 days). However, no written

statement of defence was submitted and the petitioner vide Annexures P-3, P-

4, P-5 and P-6 kept seeking supply of various documents.

5.5 Rule 7-A(7) of 2016 Rules mandates that if no written statement

of defence is submitted within a specified period or extended period,

(respondents did not extend the period for submission of written statement of

defence), the respondents are obliged under the law to appoint an Inquiry

Officer for conducting enquiry proceedings which in this case was done as late

as on 02.09.2024 by appointing an Inquiry Officer as well as a Presenting

Officer.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 12

5.6 Rule 7-A(12) of 2016 Rules further provides in mandatory terms

that if the delinquent employee refuses or omits to plead (including omission

to file written statement of defence), the Inquiry Officer shall produce the

evidence by which he proposes to prove the statement of charges and after

recording the statements of witnesses on behalf of the employer adjourn the

case to a date not exceeding 30 days to allow the delinquent employee an

opportunity to prepare his defence which includes inspection of documents

specified in the list of documents referred to in Rule 7-A(3); submit a list of

witnesses to be examined on behalf of the delinquent employee; seek supply of

copies of statements of witnesses recorded on behalf of the Employer and

afford an opportunity of 10 days to the delinquent employee extendable by

another 10 days for discovery or production of any documents not mentioned

in the list of documents under Rule 7-A(3) after indicating their relevancy.

5.7 Thereafter if the delinquent employee is given any documents

under the process of discovery/production of documents, he is entitled to

produce his defence witnesses or documents in support of his defence with

corresponding right to the Presenting Officer to cross examine the witnesses

and the documentary evidence.

5.8 Thereafter the Inquiry Officer closes the enquiry which was

conducted in presence of the parties or ex-parte, as the case may be, and

prepare and submit his enquiry report by holding each articles of charge to be

either proved, disproved or partly proved. Thereafter, inquiry report is

submitted before the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority, who is obliged to take

action thereon after supplying copy of the said report to the delinquent

employee. Once the order of exoneration or penalty is imposed, the

disciplinary proceedings come to an end.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 13

6. From the aforesaid analysis of Rule 7 of 2016 Rules, which lays

down the detailed procedure right from the issuance of charge sheet up to the

passing of the order of exoneration or penalty, it is clear that disciplinary

proceedings have been divided into various stages and for nearly each stage a

time frame has been prescribed within which the stage needs to be completed.

There cannot be any delay beyond the timeline prescribed under Rule 7 of

2016 Rules.

6.1 The object of providing timeline in mandatory terms serves dual

purposes. The delinquent employee is not kept in a state of uncertainty for

indefinite period and the employer on the other hand also is not obliged to

continue a tainted employee for long.

7. As such it is the bounden duty of the Inquiry Officer as well as

the supervisory duty of the Disciplinary Authority (the High Court herein) to

ensure disciplinary proceedings to conclude within the timeline prescribed

under Rule 7(A)(1) to 7(B) & (C) in any case within an outer limit of

6-7months from the date of issuance of charge sheet.

7.1 Any delay caused or laxity on the part of the Inquiry Officer in

concluding the disciplinary proceedings within six months ought to be viewed

seriously and critically by the High Court giving, rise to a cause of misconduct

on the part of Inquiry Officer unless there are cogent and compelling reasons

for delay which ought to be put down in writing by the Inquiry Officer.

8. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is surprising to note that after

issuance of the charge sheet on 24.07.2023, the first witness for the employer

was examined as late as on 23.01.2025 which speaks volumes about the lack

of promptitude on the part of the Inquiry Officer and further failure of the

High Court in exercising proper superintendence over the Inquiry Officer.

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 14

8.1. In the instant case, not more than 45 days ought to have been

granted for submission of written statement of defence starting from

24.07.2023 (the date of serving of charge-sheet).

9. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent-High Court

that disciplinary proceedings are still continuing against the delinquent

employee and examination of last witness is going on and the next date is

scheduled for 23.05.2025.

10. Pertinently there is no judicial order in this case restraining the

Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority from proceeding ahead with the

enquiry proceedings and therefore, the act of the Inquiry Officer in granting

adjournments liberally for the purpose of filing of written statement of defence

is not appreciable.

11. In the given facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Officer ought to

have proceeded ex-parte against the delinquent employee on his failure to file

the written statement of defence and proceeded to examine the witnesses and

the documents produced by the employer instead of adjourning the

proceedings repeatedly on one pretext or the other.

12. From the discussion supra, this Court is of the firm view that

petitioner has no right to seek further time to file written statement of defence

after expiry of 45 days and more so when the employer had declined grant of

extension of time for filing written statement of defence.

13. Thus, this Court rejects the prayer made by the petitioner and

dismisses this petition with a direction to the Inquiry Officer to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings by submitting the Inquiry Report as early as possible

and thereafter the High Court to make its recommendations expeditiously. The

High Court is requested to ensure that in all, ongoing and as well as

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 15

disciplinary inquiries to be initiated in the future, the following time line be

adhered to failing which punitive action be taken against Inquiry Officer or

any other erring personnel of the High Court.

MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE TIME FRAME

Chargesheet + Docs. Served

Normally 30 days

(extendable by 15 days)

Supply of Written Statement of Defence (WSD) by Delinquent officer to IO

If WSD Unsatisfactory/pleads guilty, IO and PO appointed

Who conduct inquiry by recording evidence

Submission of Enquiry Report to Disciplinary Authority

Show cause notice along with Enquiry Report by IO

Opportunity given to Delinquent Officer to file Representation

(personal hearing can also be granted)

Disciplinary Authority decides to either modify or impose or drop

recommendations of IO

Govt.’s final decision

TOTAL: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS

Max. 45

days

1 month

10 days

Max. 4

months

CWP No. 752 of 2025 (O&M) 16

14. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the affidavit filed

by the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 seeking permission to file reply to the

charge sheet subject to which the petitioner would withdraw his challenge to

the appointment of the Inquiry Officer is rendered infructuous and is dismissed

as such.

15. With the above these observations, the petition stands dismissed.

(SHEEL NAGU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(H.S.GREWAL)

JUDGE

23.05.2025

ravinder

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No√