Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an employee of Punjabi University seeking a direction to quash the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings initiated and passed against him.

The Court observed, "...this Court does not find it to be a case where writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be resorted to interfere at this stage merely for the reason that the petitioner apprehends that the proceedings shall result in an order against him."

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain observed that the law with respect to interference in disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee at this nascent stage stands settled by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28] wherein it was been held that “The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so”.

Senior Advocate D. S. Patwalia appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate H. S. Batth appeared for the Respondent.

In a nutshell, the Petitioner was working with the Respondent-University and had served about 37 years. He moved to Canada and initially got permanent residency in Canada but the same as per him got revoked in the year 2015. Having his family in Canada he used to visit them after taking a sanctioned leave from the University. The Petitioner also claimed to be a member of Teacher’s Association and asserts to be instrumental in raising issues with respect to governance of the University. It had been claimed that the Petitioner being vocal in raising these issues had been treated as eyesore by the Vice Chancellor. With an intent to victimize him, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated issuing a chargesheet.

It was the Petitioner’s case that none of the charges as mentioned in the statement of allegations accompanying the chargesheet constituted substantive misconduct and the proceedings was targeted with malafide intention of the Vice Chancellor. Opposing the same, the Respondents submitted that there was sufficient material with the University to prove misconduct of the Petitioner and the same was evident from the fact that the Petitioner gained employment in Canada and appointment letter was there with the University.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the Petitioner had merely been issued a chargesheet.

Thus, the Bench observed that the procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceedings have enough checks and balances having potential to weed out such apprehensions.

“The petitioner instead of responding to the chargesheet and the notice has initiated the present lis which is merely peremptory in nature. The Court is quite sanguine that in case the petitioner responds to the notice, the authorities shall proceed in accordance with law”, added the Bench.

Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench also declined the prayer of the Counsel that in case the departmental proceedings result in orders of punishment against the petitioner, the same be ordered to be kept in abeyance at least for one week to enable the petitioner to avail his remedy against the said order.

Cause Title: Pushpinder Singh Gill v. Punjabi University and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: PHHC: 076091]

Click here to read/download the Order



Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Pankaj Jain

Pankaj Bajpai