Supreme Court Restored Full Pension, Finds Disciplinary Finding Unsupported by Evidence and Orders Costs

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment which had modified a disciplinary order that imposed a 2% permanent cut in pension on a senior medical officer; the challenge raised whether the findings and penalty imposed after quasi‑judicial inquiry were supported by legal evidence and whether the process was fair.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Disciplinary Authority’s order as well as the High Court’s Division Bench and Single Judge orders, directed restoration of full pension with refund of any amounts already deducted together with interest at 6% per annum, and awarded costs of Rs.50,000 to the appellant. The Court observed that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority had relied on considerations extraneous to the charges and that some charges lacked legal evidence; the Division Bench’s partial relief was insufficient because it left the impugned findings intact. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. … In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence.” The Court also reproduced the Division Bench’s earlier remark that the punishment “is sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court.”

Background The appellant, Dr. Bhupinderpal Singh Gill, served for 34 years as Senior Medical Officer, CHC Dirba, Sangrur. Eleven days before his superannuation on 31 March 2017, he received a charge‑sheet dated 20 March 2017 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 alleging (i) non‑compliance with Election Commission directions, (ii) proceeding on leave without sanction, (iii) non‑participation in pulse polio programme and alleged threats to a Senior Assistant, and (iv) non‑compliance with orders of superior officers. His service was not extended and he was relieved on 31 March 2017; inquiry proceedings followed with an Inquiry Officer appointed in February 2018.

The Inquiry Officer in September 2018 reported that charges 1 to 4 were proved except the allegation of giving threats, but the prosecution had led only two witnesses and did not produce call details or the Senior Assistant as a witness. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and, by order dated 11 October 2019, imposed a 2% cut in pension with cumulative/permanent effect. The appellant challenged the order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court; a Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 26 February 2021. The Division Bench, by order dated 19 April 2022, allowed the intra‑court appeal in part and modified the punishment to a 2% pension cut for five years only, restoring full pension thereafter, observing that the permanent cut “is disproportionate to the misconduct and is sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court.”

On further challenge in the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that there was no legal evidence of serious misconduct, that the process evidenced arbitrariness and mala fide motive, and that the disciplinary action appeared to be retributive after the appellant had litigated against senior State officials. The State relied on the inquiry record and contended that no breach of natural justice occurred and that the Division Bench’s modification answered the grievance.

The Supreme Court found that core charges—proceeding on leave without sanction and non‑compliance with superior officers—were unsupported by legal evidence because the prosecution had not produced evidence of refusal of leave or call records, and that the Inquiry Officer had, impermissibly, treated a perceived moral duty as a charge. The Court also noted an Election Commission order exempting officers due to retire within six months from election duty and held the disciplinary action unreasonable in the face of that policy. The Court directed refund of any pension deductions with 6% interest within three months and awarded Rs.50,000 costs, granting the State liberty to seek recovery from responsible officials if appropriate.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17120 of 2022) Case Title: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Patwalia, Senior Counsel (for appellant) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nupur, Advocate (for State of Punjab and others)