1 lakh cost on State for wasting Court's time

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition challenging the charge-sheet issued for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, stating that it was violating Proviso of Rule 2.2(b), Note 2, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, a Single Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., allowed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the respondent stating that the present litigation dehors the very basic object of litigation policy of the State of Punjab.

Background

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after his retirement, on 31-12-2017, in a case which was more than 4 years old. The charge-sheet, which was issued on 9-7-2021, revealed that the date of misconduct was between 2008 to 2010 which was about 11 years before the issuance of charge-sheet issued after the superannuation of the petitioner.

Analysis and Decision

The Court considered Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and quashed the charge-sheet along with consequential proceedings stating that it could not survive the test of law.

Further, the Court stated that its time was wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents, in blatant violation of law. Furthermore, the Court observed that the present litigation was dehors the very basic object of Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab.

The Court stated that the respondent misused the judicial process by filling a 56 pages long affidavit opposing the claim of petitioner rather than conceding. Further, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the respondent in favour of Poor Patients Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh with liberty to the respondent to recover the same from the salary of the authority which issued the impugned charge-sheet.

[Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP-28343-2024(O&M), decided on 10-7-2025]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Sarthak Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Vipin Pal Yadav, Additional Advocate General

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.