Dharam Pal Kaura vs State Of Punjab & Ors

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-10708-1997 (O&M)
Reserved on : 27.08.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2026
Date of Uploading : 04.11.2026
Dharam Pal Kaura ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Shrenik Jain, and
Mr. Haripal, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-BBMB.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated
25.03.1995 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was
dismissed from service and order dated 06.05.1997 passed by respondent
No.2, whereby appeal/review preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings, are that the petitioner
joined the Punjab Irrigation Department as a Sectional Officer at the Bhakra
Dam Project on 23.07.1956 and was promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer on
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 2 -
11.08.1973. His service conditions were governed by the Punjab Service of
Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Class II Rules, 1961. In the year 1990, a
vigilance inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the Vigilance
Department. Accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 07.09.1990 was served upon
him under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1970, alleging that he had acquired property disproportionate to his
known sources of income during the period from 01.05.1973 to 30.06.1987.
As per the charge-sheet, the amount of expenditure in excess of his known
sources of income was assessed at Rs.70,327.34. The petitioner submitted
his reply dated 01.10.1990, explaining that a sum of Rs.54,000/- had been
received by him through cheques and drafts from his father, relatives and
friends. However, the reply was not accepted and a regular departmental
inquiry was ordered. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 23.11.1990, who
submitted his report on 19.05.1993, wherein it was stated that the charges
levelled against the petitioner are found to be proved. The Inquiry Officer
rejected the explanation of the petitioner regarding receipt of Rs.54,000/-
from his father and other persons on the ground that the petitioner had
neither obtained prior permission from the department nor intimated
regarding receipt of the said amount. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated
16.06.1993 proposing the penalty of dismissal from service was issued to the
petitioner, to which he submitted his reply on 07.09.1993. The matter was
subsequently referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission for its
advice and approval. On 14.10.1994, approval was granted by the Punjab
Public Service Commission for dismissal of the petitioner from service.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 3 -
Consequently, vide order dated 05.04.1995, the petitioner was dismissed
from service under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1970, read with the Punjab Service of Engineers (Irrigation
Branch) Class II Rules, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the
petitioner filed an appeal/review petition dated 15.05.1995 under Rule 21 of
the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Since the
appeal/review was not decided, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
CWP No.237 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide order
dated 07.01.1997, with a direction to the respondents to pass a final order on
the appeal/review filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated
06.05.1997, the appeal/review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition challenging the
orders of dismissal from service and rejection of his appeal/review petition.
Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
findings against the petitioner proceed substantially on his failure to obtain
prior permission for receiving the amount, whereas no such requirement
existed under Rule 16(4) of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules,
1966, in the relevant period. The amendment came only by notification
dated 25.06.1999 and transactions were of 1973-1987 and dismissal was in
the year 1995. He further contends that there is no allegation of bribe,
illegal gratification, misappropriation or receipt from any contractor and the
respondents themselves admitted that the petitioner was never posted on
contractor/public dealing/purchase work. He further contends that the
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 4 -
respondent-department totally ignored the service of 39 years of the
petitioner before imposing order of dismissal. He further contends that the
charge-sheet was not issued by the competent disciplinary authority. He also
contends that the quantum of punishment of dismissal of service is highly
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He, therefore, prays that the
present writ petition be allowed.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents argues on the
lines of the written statement filed by the respondents. They, therefore, pray
that the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
6. A perusal of the file shows that as per charges levelled against
the petitioner, his expenditure was more than his income. The petitioner
filed reply to the same by saying that the money was received from his
father, friends and other relatives. The same was rejected by the Inquiry
Officer on the ground that the petitioner did not take permission from his
department before receiving this amount and he never informed the
department as well, regarding this amount. The witnesses examined before
the Inquiry Officer by the petitioner were not relied upon since they were not
able to show their financial position to give such a big amount to the
petitioner. No reason was explained by the petitioner to receive such a big
amount of loan or gift from his relatives and friends. The petitioner tried to
show certain expenses without any documentary proof. He did not produce
his Income Tax Returns to prove his expenditure and earnings. A perusal of
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 5 -
the file further shows that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to
defend his case and principles of natural justice were duly followed. The
fact that the petitioner did not inform the department regarding the money
received by him from his friends and relatives, is admitted by the petitioner.
A huge amount of gifts and loans were received by the petitioner which are
admitted by the petitioner to be received without any permission from the
department. As per impugned order dated 25.03.1995, the petitioner was
charge-sheeted under Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1970, for major punishment by the Vigilance Department
on 07.09.1990. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner: -
“Sh. Dharam Pal Kaura, SDO, has made more property
st
than his know sources of income during the period of 1
th
July, 1973 to 30 June, 1987. During this period your
total income from known sources was Rs.2,79,857.97 and
the total expenditure was Rs.3,50,195.31. the detail of
which is shown in the attached charge-sheet meaning
thereby that during this period you have spent
Rs.70,327.34 more than your income. Your have no
satisfactory reply for it.”
7. In his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner justified his
expenditure more than his income by giving a chart of receipt of gifts/loans
from his relatives and friends.
8. Now coming to the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules,
1966. The relevant rules of the same are reproduced as under:-
“ 13 Gifts :- (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules,
no Government employee shall accept or permit any
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 6 -
member of his family or any other person acting on his
behalf to accept any gift.
Explanation :- The expression “gift” shall include free
transport, boarding, lodging, or other service or any
other pecuniary advantage when provided by any person
other than a near relative or personal friend having no
official dealing with the Government.
Note (I)- A casual meal, gift or other social
hospitality shall not to be a gift.
Note (II)- A Government employee shall avoid
accepting lavish hospitality or frequent hospitality
from any individual having official dealing with
him or from industrial or commercial firms,
organisations, etc.
(2) On occasion, such as weeding, anniversaries,
funerals or religious function, when the making of a gift
is in conformity with the prevailing religious or social
practice, a Government employee may accept gifts from
his near relatives but he shall make a report to the
Government if the value of any such gift exceeds-
(i) Rs.500.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any class I or class II post;
(ii) Rs.250.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any class III post; and
(iii) Rs.100.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any Class IV post.
(3) On such occasion as are specified in sub-rule (2), a
Government employee may accept gifts from his personal
friends having no official dealing with him, but he shall
make a report to the Government if the value of any such
gifts exceeds-
(i) Rs.200.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any class I for class II post;
(ii) Rs.100.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any Class III post; and
(iii) Rs.50.00 in the case of a Government
employee holding any Class IV post;
(4) In any other case, a Government employee shall
not accept or permit any member of his family or any
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 7 -
other person acting on his behalf to accept, any gift
without the sanction of the Government, if the value
thereof exceeds:-
(i) Rs.75.00 in the case of a Government employee
holding any Class I or Class II post; and
(ii) Rs.25.00 in the case of a Government employee
holding any Class III or Class IV post.
13A. Prohibition to give, take or demand dowry - No
Government employee shall:-
(i) give or take or abet the giving or taking of
dowry;
(ii) demand, directly or indirectly, from the parents
or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case
may be, any dowry.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this rule, “dowry” has
the same meaning as in the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961
(28 of 1961)].
14 & 15. XXX XXX XXX
16. Investment, lending and borrowing - (1) No
Government employee shall speculate in any stock or
other investment.
Explanation - Frequent purchase or sale or both of
shares, securities or other investment shall be deemed to
be speculation within the meaning of this sub-rule.
(2) No Government employee shall make or permit any
member of his family or any person acting on his behalf
to make any investment which is likely to embarrass or
influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
(3) If any question arises whether any transaction is of
the nature referred to in sub-rule (1), or sub-rule (2) the
decision of the prescribed authority thereon shall be
final.
(4) (i) No Government employee shall, save in the
ordinary course of business with a bank or a public
limited company, either himself or through any member
of his family or any other person acting on his behalf-
(a) lend or borrow or deposit money, as a principal
or an agent, to, or from, or with, any person or firm
or private limited company within the local limits of
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 8 -
his authority or with whom he likely to have official
dealings, or otherwise place himself under any
pecuniary obligation to such person or firm or
Private Limited Company; or (b) lend money to any
person at interest or in a manner where by return in
money or in kind is charge or paid;
Provided that a Government employee may,
give to, or accept from, a relative or a personal
friend, a purely temporary loan of a small amount
free of interest. Or operate a credit account with a
bonafide tradesman or make an advance of pay to
his private employee;-
Provided further that nothing in this sub-rule
shall apply in respect of any transaction entered
into by a Government employee with the previous
sanction of the Government.
(ii) When a Government employee is appointed on
transferred to a post of such nature as would
involve him in the breach of any of the provision of
sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (4), he shall forthwith
report the circumstances to the prescribed authority
and shall thereafter act in accordance with such
order as may be made by such authority.”
9. A perusal of above referred to Rule 13 shows that no
government employee shall accept or permit any member of his family or
any other person acting on his behalf to accept any gift, whereas the
petitioner has openly in the present case admitted in his reply that he has
received the gifts from his family and friends.
10. Further, as per above referred to Rule 16(4), no government
employee shall lend or borrow or deposit money either himself or through
his family or any other person acting on his behalf. Therefore, as per above
referred to rules as well, the petitioner could not receive the gifts or lend or
borrow or deposit money and in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10708-1997 (O&M) - 9 -
has violated the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, by
receiving gifts and loans from friends and relatives. So far as the contention
of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Vigilance Department
was not competent, is concerned, the Vigilance Department is vested with
concurrent power by virtue of the provisions made in Punjab Government
Allocation of Business Rules, 1978, to hear the appeals of all government
employees. As such the review/appeal of the petitioner was considered and
rejected by the Vigilance Department.
11. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the allegation of
possession of more assets valued at Rs.70,327.34 than the income of the
petitioner, is a serious allegation, which requires no interference by this
Court. Further, the inquiry has been conducted after following the principle
of natural justice by affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
defend his case. The impugned orders dated 25.03.1995 and 06.05.1997 are
reasoned and self-speaking orders. Therefore, this Court does not find any
merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
hereby dismissed .
12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Virender
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document