The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed three chargesheets issued by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) against a former inspector who was dismissed from service in 2013. The Court ruled that an employer cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings once the employment relationship has been “irrevocably severed”.
In a judgment delivered on 7 November, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed the writ petition filed by Suresh Jindal, a former Inspector (Grade-2) who was dismissed on 31 October, 2013, following his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite his dismissal, PUNSUP issued charge sheets in April and July 2017 — nearly four years later — alleging financial irregularities.
The Court held that the termination order had “snapped the vinculum juris,” or legal bond, between the petitioner and the corporation, thereby ending the master-servant relationship. Relying on precedents set by the Supreme Court, including Indian Bank v. Mahaveer Khariwal (2021) and State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024), the bench reiterated that disciplinary jurisdiction exists only during an active employment relationship.
Justice Brar also dismissed the corporation’s contention that Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules allowed post-dismissal proceedings for pension recovery, observing that Jindal was not eligible for pension and, therefore, the rule was inapplicable. “A provision that deals exclusively with the withholding of a pensionary benefit cannot be invoked against a person who is not eligible for pension in the first place,” the court noted.
Rejecting the argument that the dismissal order was still under challenge in a civil suit, the bench observed that PUNSUP became functus officio — without authority — on disciplinary matters once the dismissal had taken effect. Concluding that the corporation lacked jurisdiction to act against a person no longer in its employment, the Court quashed all three charge sheets and the consequent proceedings.
