Sukhdev Singh Sidhu v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.05.2026 Sukhdev Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner

Versus

The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondent-Corporation.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) CM-9410-CWP-2026 Allowed as prayed for.

1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which have been initiated by the issuance of charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) as is mandated by the own memo of the respondent-Corporation bearing memo No.468/1068 D-9570 T-3 dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2025 and merely few days prior to his retirement on 28.03.2025, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet

-2- (Annexure P-1) which is liable to be set aside on the ground that the charge sheet was issued pertaining to the misconduct which took place 13 years ago. She further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.9606 of 2022 titled as Khairati Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 13.10.2025 and submits that every delinquent employee is entitled to have disciplinary proceedings concluded within a reasonable dispatch. It is argued that despite issuance of the show cause notice on 28.03.2025, more than one year has passed and the departmental proceedings have not progressed beyond the initial stage. As a result, the petitioner's retiral dues remain withheld without any justifiable progress in the disciplinary proceedings. 3.

Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate appears and files his memorandum of appearance which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file. She is not in a position to controvert the fact that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 28.03.2025 and till date, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded despite the lapse of more than 14 months which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010 titled as Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another decided on 16.12.2015 as well as the judgment of this Court in Khairati Lal's case (supra).

4.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it expedient, in the interest of justice, to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the competent disciplinary authority to conclude the

-3disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No