Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Departmental Proceedings Initiated After Dismissal; Rules Employer Becomes Functus Officio Once Employment Ends
Case Name: Suresh Jindal v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Another
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2025
Citation: CWP-10396-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once an employee has been dismissed from service, the employer loses all disciplinary jurisdiction over that individual, becoming functus officio in respect of further departmental action. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against a dismissed employee is ultra vires, void ab initio, and unsupported by any statutory authority. The Court observed that the power of disciplinary control stems solely from an existing employer–employee relationship, which ceases upon dismissal unless expressly preserved by law.
Summary: The petitioner, an Inspector Grade-II with PUNSUP, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in 2013, leading to his dismissal from service on October 31, 2013. In 2017, nearly four years later, the Corporation issued multiple charge sheets to him alleging financial irregularities. The petitioner challenged the action as illegal, contending that once dismissed, he was no longer under the Corporation’s service or disciplinary authority. The respondents justified the proceedings as a bona fide measure to recover losses caused during his tenure.
Justice Brar examined Supreme Court rulings including Indian Bank v. Mahaveer Khariwal (2021) 2 SCC 632, Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024 INSC 874), State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta (1997) 8 SCC 60, and Director, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey (2013) 6 CTC 342, reiterating that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after cessation of service unless expressly permitted by the governing rules. The Court underscored that disciplinary control presupposes an active employer–employee bond; once severed through dismissal, resignation, or superannuation, that authority automatically extinguishes.
The Court rejected the Corporation’s reliance on Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II—which allows withholding of pension—holding it inapplicable since the petitioner was not a pensionable employee. It ruled that such provisions cannot be stretched to create a general power to discipline ex-employees.
Decision: Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned charge sheets dated April 27, 2017, and July 17, 2017, along with all consequential enquiry proceedings. It held that the 2013 dismissal order had conclusively terminated the master–servant relationship, thereby depriving the Corporation of any further disciplinary authority. The Court concluded that “once the contract of service is terminated, the employer becomes functus officio for disciplinary purposes”.