IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

201-12

Decided on : 08.09.2025

1. CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

2. CM-1785-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12714-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

3. CM-1798-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12234-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

4. CM-1807-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-13778-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -2-

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

5. CM-1808-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12647-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

6. CM-1856-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12148-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

7. CM-1857-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-11978-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

8. CM-2365-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-11992-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -3-

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

9. CM-2389-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12126-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

10. CM-1799-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12743-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

11. CM-9019-CWP-2019 in/and

CWP-12122-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

12. CM-1826-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-20378-2013 (O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . .Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

. . . Respondents

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -4-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel

for petitioners-UOI (Through Virtual Mode).

Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate and

Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

Present bunch of petitions alongwith applications, the details of

which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and

common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of

convenience, the facts are being taken from CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013.

CM-1784-CWP-2020 and connected applications.

Present applications have been filed for revival of the main

petitions, which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2013

Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 28.02.2020

by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court.

Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, which

are duly supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed.

Consequently, the writ petitions are restored to its original

number and status and the order dated 30.07.2013 is recalled. On the joint

request of both the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for hearing

today itself.

CWP-12153-2013 and connected matters:

1. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the order

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -5-

dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Chandigarh Administrative

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred to ‘the

Tribunal’) by which, directions have been given by the Tribunal to the

petitioner-department not to proceed with the departmental proceedings

which have been initiated against the respondent-employee(s) on the ground

that Criminal proceedings are pending before the CBI Court, Patiala, against

the respondent-employee(s) qua the same incident, as the same will cause

prejudice to them.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the charges

levelled against the respondents-employee(s) in the criminal proceedings is

under Indian Penal Code, 1908 and The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

whereas the departmental proceedings have been initiated under Rule 14 of

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965,

hence, both the proceedings are entirely different. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further argues that as per the settled principle of law, both the

proceedings i.e. criminal proceedings and Departmental proceedings can

continue simultaneously, hence, direction given by the Tribunal for keeping

the departmental proceedings in abeyance, is liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respo ndent-

employee(s) submits that though, the charges levelled against the

respondents-employee(s) are different in the departmental proceedings as

compared to the allegations in the criminal proceedings but the incident qua

which both the proceedings have been initiated is same, hence, the directions

given by the Tribunal to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till

the conclusion of the trial, is perfectly valid.

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -6-

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the said issue of simultaneously holding

departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings against an

employee came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Shashi Bhusan Prasad versus Inspector General, Central

Industrial security Force and others, (2019) 7 SCC 797, wherein it has been

held that as the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate

in fields and have different objectives, the same can continue simultaneously

especially when the criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an

offender and departmental proceedings is to impose penalty as per services

regulations.

6. Thereafter, again the same question of law came u p for

consideration before the Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5111 of

2024 titled as Mustaq versus State of Haryana and others, decided on

10.04.2024 wherein after considering the law on the said issue in detail, it

has been held that the criminal proceedings as well as departmental

proceedings initiated qua the same incident can continue simultaneously

especially when charges have already been framed in the criminal trial.

The relevant paragraph No. 17 is as under:-

17 From the above said judgments, the following

principles/conclusions emerge:-

1. Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case

can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being

conducted simultaneously though separately. (Specific reference

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -7-

in this regard can be made to the judgment in case of Capt. M.

Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced

in Para 5 of the present order) and State Bank of India and

Ors. (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 8

of the present order)

2. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and the

disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different

inasmuch as in the disciplinary proceedings, the question is as

to whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit

his removal from service or imposition of lesser punishment

whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is as to

whether the offences registered against him are established and

if established, what sentence is to be imposed upon him.

(Specific reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors (supra) (relevant portion

of which is reproduced in Para 7 of the present order) and to

Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central

Industrial Security Force and others, reported as 2019(7) SCC

797 and also LPA-470-2024 (relevant portion of which is

reproduced in Para 10 of the present order).

3. The mode of the enquiry, the rules governing the enquiry and

trial as well as the standard of proof in criminal proceedings

and in departmental proceedings are distinct and different and

in a criminal case, charge has to be established beyond

reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental proceedings, the

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -8-

charge of misconduct has to be established on the principle of

“preponderance of probabilities”. (Specific reference in this

regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in “State of Karnataka and others vs. Umesh”,

reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 345 and LPA-470-2024

(relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 10 of the

present order).

4. There should be early conclusion of departmental proceedings

so as to weed out any employee whose integrity/character has

been put in doubt and to maintain discipline in service and

efficiency of public service and also in case the employee is not

guilty of any wrong doing, then his honour is required to be

vindicated at the earliest. [Specific reference in this regard can

be made to the judgment in the case

Dr.Balwinder Kumar

Sharma’s

(supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in

Para 14 of the present order) and Capt. M. Paul Anthony

(supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para 5 of the

present order).

5. All the ingredients i.e., the departmental proceedings and the

criminal case being based on identical and similar set of facts,

charge in the criminal case being of grave nature involving

complicated questions of law and facts are required to be met

before the Court could consider the case of the employee for

grant of stay of departmental proceedings during the pendency

of the criminal case. (Specific reference in this regard can be

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -9-

made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra); Indian

Overseas Bank, Anna Salai and Anr (supra) (relevant portion

of which is reproduced in Para 6 of the present order); State

Bank of India and Ors. (supra) (relevant portion of which is

reproduced in Para 8 of the present order).

6. Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and

whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in

that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of

the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence

and material collected against him during investigation or as

reflected in the charge sheet. [Specific reference can be made to

the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)]. Even the

question as to whether the case involves identical and similar set

of facts would also have to be considered after taking into

consideration the FIR, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and

the charges framed. [Reference in this regard can be made to

the judgment of Paramjit Kaur’s (supra)] (relevant portion of

which is reproduced in Para 16 of the present order)

7. The fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal

case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the

charges in the criminal case against the delinquent employee

are of grave nature which involve complicated questions of law

and facts also cannot be considered in isolation to stay the

departmental proceedings and due regard must be given to the

fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -10-

delayed. [Specific reference in this regard can be made to the

case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) (relevant portion of

which is reproduced in para 5 of the present order) and State

Bank of India and Ors. (supra).] (relevant portion of which is

reproduced in Para 8 of the present order)

8. Before granting stay of the departmental proceedings, special

facts of the case are required to be mentioned, warranting stay

of departmental proceedings. (Specific reference in this regard

can be made to the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

& Ors (supra) (relevant portion of which is reproduced in Para

7 of the present order). 9. In case all the above parameters are

met and the stay of the departmental proceedings has been

granted, then also in case, the criminal case is being unduly

delayed, the departmental proceedings can be resumed and

proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date. (Specific

reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Capt.

M. Paul Anthony’s case (supra) (relevant portion of which is

reproduced in Para 5 of the present order).

7. Alongwith Mustaq’s case (supra) other writ petitions were

also decided and LPA No. 1146 of 2024 titled as ASI Pawan Kumar versus

State of Haryana and others, decided on 08.05.2024 was decided by the

Division Bench upholding the judgment in Mustaq’s case (supra), wherein it

was held that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings can

operate simultaneously. The relevant paragraph No. 3 of the said judgment is

as under :-

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -11-

“3. We have perused the FIR in question which talks about the

demand of bribe as such for release of dumper vehicle of the

complainant on superdari impounded in FIR No. 330 under

Section 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Ladwa, District Kurukhetra

(Annexure P-5). The departmental proceedings as such are of

the charges are of indiscipline and bringing a bad name to the

image of the police on which the proceedings as such had been

initiated. Thus, the ambit of the departmental proceedings is in a

totally different frame and it would be governed by the fact that

the departmental proceedings are to be decided on

'preponderance of probabilities' whereas on the criminal side,

the charge has to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Even

otherwise, keeping in view the law laid down in Capt. M. Paul

Anthony's case (supra), as noticed by the learned Single Judge,

the departmental proceedings cannot be delayed for times to

come. The charge, as noticed, not being framed in the criminal

proceedings weighed with the learned Single Judge to come to

the conclusion that the appellant could be proceeded in any

manner in the departmental proceedings and the charge has not

been framed in criminal proceedings which would necessarily

take a long time to conclude.

It may be further noticed that the judgment in Mustaq’s case

(supra) has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

SLP (C) No. 20674 of 2024 decided on 10.09.2024.

It may be noticed that again the same question of law again

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -12-

came up for consideration before the learned Single Bench of this Court in

the bunch of petitions including CWP No.15845 of 2023 titled as Tulsi Dass

versus State of Haryana and others and connected matters, decided on

01.05.2024 and by considering the relevant law including Mustaq’s case

(supra), it was held by learned Single Judge that the departmental

proceedings and the criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously.

Against the said judgment in Tulsi Dass’s case (supra), LPA NO. 1255 of

2024, titled as ‘Tulsi Dass Versus State of Haryana and others’ was filed,

which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order

dated 22.05.2024. Relevant paragraph No. 2 to 4 are as under:-

2. The question which was before the learned Single Judge was

whether departmental proceedings are liable to be stayed during the

pendency of the criminal proceedings keeping in view the law laid

down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3

SCC 679. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the earlier

decision rendered in a bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWP-5111-2024,

Mustaq vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 10.04.2024 to

come to the conclusion that the department cannot be expected to wait

endlessly for the trial to conclude and there was no legal bar as such

for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously. The delay in

departmental proceedings could not be permitted as the interest of

both the parties including the employer had to be kept in mind. It was

noticed that even the charges framed before the criminal court as such

had not been produced before him and, therefore, it could not be held

that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -13-

going to be held on the same set of facts and whether there could be

any prejudice caused in the criminal case could not be deciphered.

3. Apparently, LPA-1146-2024, ASI Pawan Kumar vs. State of

Haryana and others, decided on 08.05.2024, filed against the decision

rendered in a bunch of 35 cases, lead case of which was Mustaq's case

(supra), has also been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench on

08.05.2024. The view, thus, has been upheld. Even otherwise, LPA-

470-2024, Ravi Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others has been

dismissed on 15.03.2024 by Division Bench headed by one of us i.e.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. We had also come to the conclusion that the two

proceedings, criminal and departmental, operate in different fields and

have different objectives and therefore, we dismissed a similar appeal.

The relevant portion reads thus:

“3. We have perused the FIR in question which talks about the

demand of bribe as such for release of dumper vehicle of the

complainant on superdari impounded in FIR No. 330 under

Section 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Ladwa, District Kurukhetra

(Annexure P-5). The departmental proceedings as such are of

the charges are of indiscipline and bringing a bad name to the

image of the police on which the proceedings as such had been

initiated. Thus, the ambit of the departmental proceedings is in a

totally different frame and it would be governed by the fact that

the departmental proceedings are to be decided on

'preponderance of probabilities' whereas on the criminal side,

the charge has to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Even

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -14-

otherwise, keeping in view the law laid down in Capt. M. Paul

Anthony's case (supra), as noticed by the learned Single Judge,

the departmental proceedings cannot be delayed for times to

come. The charge, as noticed, not being framed in the criminal

proceedings weighed with the learned Single Judge to come to

the conclusion that the appellant could be proceeded in any

manner in the departmental proceedings and the charge has not

been framed in criminal proceedings which would necessarily

take a long time to conclude.

4. In LPA-565-2020, State of Haryana and others vs. Satish

Kumar decided by Division Bench of this Court on 30.05.2022,

authored by one of us G.S. Sandhawalia, J., we allowed the

appeal of the State and dismissed the writ petition by keeping in

mind the scope of both set of proceedings and the SLP filed

against the same i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15243 of

2022 was also dismissed on 10.11.2022. Similar view was also

taken in LPA-2096-2017, State of Haryana and others vs. Suresh

Punia, decided on 09.09.2022 by Division Bench of this Court in

which one of us i.e. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. was Member. SLP

(Civil) bearing Diary No.22 of 2023 filed against the same also

stands dismissed on 16.01.2023.

5. In State of Karnataka and others vs. Umesh, 2022 SCC

Online SC 345, the employee had been proceeded against under

the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had

been acquitted after giving him the benefit of doubt. Resultantly,

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -15-

the Apex Court had gone on to hold that the principles which

govern a disciplinary inquiry are distinct from those which

apply to a criminal trial and in the former, the charge has to be

established beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the later, the

charge of misconduct has to be established on the principle of

'preponderance of probabilities'. It is also held that the rules of

evidence which apply to both the procedures are distinct.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Shashi Bhusan

Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force

and others, (2019) 7 SCC 797 held that the two proceedings i.e.

criminal and departmental operate in different fields and have

different objectives. The objective of criminal trial is to inflict

appropriate punishment on an offender whereas the purpose of

inquiry proceedings is to deal with the employee departmentally

and to impose penalty in accordance with the Service Rules.

7. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to

interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same

stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed

of accordingly.”

4. A perusal of the present case would go on to show that the

challenge as such was to the departmental proceedings initiated

whereby the charge as such was of indiscipline, misconduct, lack of

duty and lack of responsibility and tarnishing of the image of the

police in view of the involvement in FIR No.13 dated 13.05.2023 under

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -16-

Sections 7/13 (1) (B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in

short 'P.C. Act') registered at P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad.

Apparently, the appellant as such was investigating FIR No.212 dated

04.05.2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC registered at

P.S. Dabua whereby, certain demands as such had been made being

the Head Constable from the relatives of the accused, on the basis of

which, he got involved in the FIR No.13. The factum of the involvement

in criminal trial and whether he is liable to be acquitted are different

aspects altogether since in the departmental proceedings, the

misconduct aspect and tarnishing of the image of the police on account

of being involved in P.C. Act proceedings is a subject matter of

consideration.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly concedes that

the charges have been framed against the respondents-employee(s) in the

criminal trial though, subsequently, the proceedings have been stayed by the

Competent Court of Law. That being so, once, the charges have already been

framed by the competent Court of law, after conducting investigation, the

prejudice which is being sought to be projected by the respondents is

incorrect.

9. Even otherwise, the charges alleged against the respondents in

the departmental proceedings are of causing loss to the state exchequer,

whereas, in the criminal proceedings the charge is of connivance with the

firm so as to allow them to import against the rules and thereafter, destroying

the evidence hence, charges in the departmental proceedings are entirely

different than the charges in the criminal proceedings though, the incident

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -17-

remains the same.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to cite

any provisions which prohibits the continuation of the departmental

proceedings against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

11. Further, arguments raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents-employee(s) is that in exceptional cases, the Court is to see as to

whether the interest of justice demands the staying of the departmental

proceedings when the criminal proceedings are also been undertaken against

the same employee. In the present case, no special/exceptional circumstances

have been brought to the notice of this Court which would entitle the benefit

of staying the departmental proceedings against the respondents-employee

while conducting the Criminal proceedings.

12. Further, as the criminal proceedings have already been stayed

against the respondents-employee(s), keeping the departmental proceedings

in abeyance will trouble for the departments as there are serious allegations

of causing loss to the estate exchequer and the respondents-employee(s) are

continuing to perform their duties rather than actions are being taken against

them.

13. Further, nothing has come on record as to how, the prejudice is

being caused so as to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till

criminal proceedings are finally concluded. Unless and until, any documents

are placed on record with the facts that the witness are the same or the

defence of the respondents remains the same, the benefit of staying of the

departmental proceedings could not be granted to the respondents-

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -18-

employee(s).

14. In the present case, it may be noticed that the criminal

proceedings have been initiated under Indian Penal Code, 1908 and The

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereas the departmental proceedings

have been initiated under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for worngly calculating the liability of a

particular firm while discharging the duties causing loss to the state

exchequer which are entirely different.

15. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the respondents has

conceded that the charges/allegations in the criminal proceedings relates to

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas the charges in the

departmental proceedings relates to the causing loss to the state exchequer

for not discharging the duties on the post properly as per service Rules.

16. In the present case, despite being requested, no such fact has

been brought to the notice of this Court so as to conclude that the

continuation of the departmental proceedings in the facts and circumstances

of the present case especially when the criminal proceedings have already

been stayed, are going to cause any prejudice to respondents-employee.

17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

present case as well as the settled principle of law noticed herein above, not

only the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can

continue simultaneously as they operate in the different fields for different

objectives, in the present case, the criminal proceedings and the departmental

proceedings are entirely different, hence, in the totality of circumstances, the

staying of operation of departmental proceedings against the respondents by

CM-1784-CWP-2020 in/and

CWP-12153-2013 (O&M)and

connected matters -19-

the Tribunal is not only contrary to the facts but also to the settled principle

of law noticed herein above.

18. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated

28.01.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside.

However, department concerned will be free to proceed against the

respondents in accordance with law in the department.

19. The present petitions are allowed.

20. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

disposed of.

21. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected

case.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

JUDGE

08.09.2025

Riya

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No