Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes chargesheets issued after employee’s dismissal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside three chargesheets issued by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) against a former inspector, ruling that an employer cannot pursue disciplinary proceedings once the employment relationship has been fully terminated.
In its order dated 7 November, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed a petition filed by Suresh Jindal, a former Inspector (Grade-2) who was dismissed from service on 31 October 2013 following his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite the dismissal, PUNSUP issued chargesheets in April and July 2017 alleging financial irregularities.
The Court held that the 2013 dismissal had “snapped the vinculum juris,” thereby ending the legal relationship between the two parties. Citing Supreme Court judgments such as Indian Bank v. Mahaveer Khariwal (2021) and State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024), the bench reaffirmed that disciplinary authority exists only while an employment relationship remains in force.
The Court also rejected PUNSUP’s reliance on Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which allows proceedings for recovery from pension. Justice Brar noted that the rule could not apply because Jindal was not eligible for pension benefits. A provision dealing solely with pension recovery, the Court observed, “cannot be invoked against a person who is not eligible for pension in the first place.”
Addressing the corporation’s argument that the dismissal order was under challenge in a civil suit, the Court held that PUNSUP became functus officio — without the authority to continue disciplinary action — once the dismissal took effect.
Finding that the corporation lacked jurisdiction to proceed against an individual no longer in its service, the High Court quashed all three chargesheets and the related proceedings.

​