Manju Rana vs Punjab State Legal Services Authority And Ors

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-27427-2018 (O&M)

Manju Rana ... Petitioner
VS.
Punjab State Legal Services Authority & Ors. ... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 04.08.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 31.10.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 02.11.2026
4. Whether operative or full judgment Full
5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG Punjab

Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3

Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate,
Mr. Apurv Walia, Advocate,
Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.5

Sandeep Moudgil, J.


(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for
quashing the substance of allegations dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P6) as well
as the order dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure P13) of the Executive Chairman,
PSLSA declining the request of the petitioner for enlargement of time by 15
days and to supply the copies of statements and documents to enable the
petitioner to file detailed reply. He also seeks quashing of the order dated
12.06.2018 of the Executive Chairman, PSLA (Annexure P19) whereby the
petitioner has been removed from the office of Chairperson of PUS
Kapurthala with a direction to grant consequential benefits including
continuity and arrears of pay with interest @ 12% p.a.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 2 -





(2). The petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the Permanent
Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kapurthala, vide order dated 25.04.2017,
with effect from 10.05.2017, for a period of five years or till attaining the age
of 65 years, whichever was earlier. Her terms and conditions were governed
by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of
Chairman and Other Persons) Rules, 2003 (in short, the 2003 Rules).

(3). During her tenure, complaints were received against her alleging,
inter alia, that she had passed orders without the requisite quorum and issued
verbal directions for demolition/removal of encroachments during spot visits
and granted substantive relief at the interim stage. Besides, she passed an
order dated 17.04.2018 restraining NHAI from collecting toll at Ladhowal
Toll Barrier, allegedly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok
Adalat, and dealt with matters relating to traffic challans and release of
vehicles/documents.

(4). The Executive Chairman, Punjab State Legal Services Authority,
formed an opinion that the allegations disclosed abuse of position within the
meaning of Rule 5(e) of the 2003 Rules and directed a regular inquiry on
08.05.2018. The substance of allegations, list of documents and witnesses was
supplied to the petitioner on 17.05.2018, granting her seven days to submit her
defence.

(5). The petitioner denied the allegations and sought copies of the
material relied upon. On 31.05.2018, copies of the statements of S.K.
Adhikari, Advocate and Hari Krishan Joshi, Ahlmad, were supplied and time
for filing the reply was extended up to 05.06.2018. The record itself, however,
shows that statements of witnesses Nos.3 and 4 had not been recorded.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 3 -





(6). The petitioner thereafter sought further time of fifteen days and
the statements/material which had not yet been supplied. In relation to the
principal allegation concerning demolition, she specifically denied having
issued any oral or written direction and relied upon the statement of Shri
Hitesh Dhawan, Engineer, NHAI, asserting that the encroachments had been
removed by NHAI officials in exercise of their statutory powers.

(7). On 11.06.2018, the request for supply of documents was
declined on the ground that the statements demanded had never been
recorded. The request for further time was also rejected and the petitioner's
defence was closed.

(8). The inquiry thereafter proceeded and the Inquiry Officer
recorded that the material and evidence on record were “unrebutted” and
proceeded to hold the allegations proved, including the allegation that the
petitioner had issued verbal demolition directions at the spot. On 12.06.2018
(Annexure P19), the Executive Chairman, invoking Rule 5 read with Rule 6 of
the 2003 Rules and Regulations 3 and 6 of the 1998 Regulations, removed the
petitioner from the office of Chairperson with immediate effect.

(9). The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.07.2018 to the
Patron-in-Chief seeking reinstatement, but the same remained undecided.

(10). Hence this writ petition.

(11). The principal question which arises for consideration is whether
the order of removal passed under Rule 5(e) read with Rule 6 of the 2003
Rules can be sustained when, after the petitioner denied the allegations, her
defence was closed despite the record showing that statements of two listed
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 4 -




witnesses had not been recorded, and the petitioner had sought those
statements and reasonable further time to meet the allegations?”

(12). Rule 5(e) of the 2003 Rules empowers the Authority to remove
the Chairman where he or she “ has so abused his position as to render his
continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest ”. Proviso to Rule 5,
however, expressly requires that removal on this ground shall be only after an
inquiry held in accordance with Rule 6 of the said Rules.
“6. Procedure for Inquiry — (1) Whenever the Central Authority
or, as the case may be, State Authority is of the opinion that an
allegation under clause (d) or clause (e) of rule 5 is required to
be inquired into, it may hold an inquiry against the Chairman or
other person and shall draw or cause to be drawn up the
substance of the allegation which shall contain a statement of
relevant facts and a list of documents and witness.
(2) The Central Authority or, as the case may be, State Authority
shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Chairman or other
person a copy of the allegation and a list of documents and
witnesses and shall require him to submit within such time a s
may be allowed, a written reply or statement of his defence.
(3) If the allegations are admitted by the Chairman or other
person, the Central Authority or , as the case may be, State
Authority shall record reasons and remove the Chairman or
other person.
(4) Where the charges have been denied by the Chairman or the
other person, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, State
Authority may appoint an officer to inquire into the truth of the
allegations and it may also appoint a Presenting Officer to
present the case on behalf of the Central Authority or, as the case
may be, State Authority before the Inquiry Officer.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 5 -




(5) The Inquiry Officer shall give an opportunity to the
Presenting Officer to present the case within such time as may be
allowed by the Inquiry Officer from time to time. After the
evidence is closed by the presenting Officer, the Chairman or
other person, as the case may be, shall be given an opportunity to
present his defence in respect of allegations within such time as
may be allowed by the Inquiry Officer.
(6) The Inquiry Officer shall have power to call witnesses and
record their statements or receive evidence on affidavits or call
for production of documents or other relevant records, which
may be necessary for the inquiry.
(7) The Inquiry Officer shall submit his report within a period of
six months or within such time as may be extended by the Central
Authority or, as the case may be, State Authority.
(8) If the Central Authority or, as the case may be, State
Authority is satisfied that the charges are proved on the basis of
the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it shall remove the
delinquent Chairman or other person, as the case may be.”

(13). Rule 6(1) requires the Authority to draw up the substance of the
allegations containing the relevant facts and list of documents and witnesses
and Rule 6(2) requires the same to be delivered to the Chairman and an
opportunity be given to submit a written defence. Where the charges are
denied, Rule 6(4) contemplates an inquiry into the truth of the allegations and
Rule 6(5) provides that after the evidence of the presenting side is closed, the
Chairman shall be given an opportunity to present his defence. Further, Rule
6(6) empowers the Inquiry Officer to call witnesses, record their statements
and call for relevant documents and thereafter under Rule 6(8), removal can
follow only if the Authority is satisfied that the charges are proved on the
basis of the inquiry report.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 6 -





(14). It can be seen that the statutory requirement is thus not satisfied
merely by serving the substance of allegations and obtaining a written
response inasmuch as where the allegations are denied, the prescribed inquiry
has to be conducted in a manner which affords an effective opportunity to
meet the evidence against the delinquent.

(15). At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner denied every
allegation levelled against the petitioner and specifically disputed the
demolition allegation. He submits that despite the admitted position that
statements of witnesses Nos.3 and 4 had not been recorded, petitioner’s
defence was closed on 11.06.2018 and as such, the subsequent finding that the
evidence was “unrebutted” is totally unsustainable in eyes of law and
principles of natural justice.

(16). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that adequate
opportunity had been granted and relevant statements were supplied to the
petitioner. He submits that time had already been extended, however, the
petitioner failed to submit her defence within the time granted. It is further
submitted that the Inquiry Officer considered the available material and found
the allegations proved and that the Executive Chairman being the competent
authority under Regulations 3 and 6 of the 1998 Regulations passed the
impugned order removing her from the office of Chairperson.

(17). Heard learned cousnel for the parties and the judgment was
reserved on 04.08.2026.

(18). This Court is not required, in the present proceedings, to re-
appreciate the evidence regarding the individual allegations. It is not
necessary to determine whether the petitioner actually directed demolition,
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 7 -




whether the demolition was independently carried out by NHAI, or whether
the orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat were legally correct. The
limited question before this Court is whether the statutory procedure for
removal of the petitioner was fairly followed as envisaged under the 2003
Rules.

(19). On this aspect, the respondents themselves recorded on
31.05.2018 that statements of witnesses Nos.3 and 4 had not been recorded.
The petitioner thereafter sought further time and the relevant material. Instead
of completing the evidence and thereafter permitting the petitioner to
effectively meet it, the request was rejected on 11.06.2018, her defence was
closed and the inquiry subsequently treated the evidence as “unrebutted”.

(20). The principle of fair inquiry requires that a person facing a
charge must know not merely the accusation but also the evidence by which it
is sought to be established and must have a fair opportunity to meet such
evidence.

(21). In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen , AIR 1963 SC 1719 ,
the Supreme Court observed that “a person who is required to answer the
charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the
accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence
in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-
examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the
evidence led against him.”

(22). The same principle has been reiterated in the authorities referred
to in the petition, including State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma , AIR 1968 SC 158 ,
wherein denial of an opportunity to produce witnesses and lead defence
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 8 -




evidence was held to vitiate the proceedings. The burden to establish the guilt
of the employee also remains upon the authority and does not disappear
merely because the delinquent has not submitted or been permitted to submit
an effective defence and the charge has remained ‘unrebutted’.

(23). The principle is particularly applicable here because the
petitioner had not admitted the charges or declined to participate in the
inquiry. On the contrary, she specifically disputed the allegations and sought
material which she considered necessary for her defence. Her defence was
closed at a stage when the record itself showed that the evidence of two listed
witnesses had not been recorded.

(24). This Court is therefore not substituting its own appreciation of
evidence for that of the Inquiry Officer. The infirmity goes to the decision-
making process itself . The procedure prescribed by Rule 6 was intended to
ensure that the serious consequence of removal under Rule 5(e) of the 2003
Rules follows only after a fair inquiry into the truth of the allegations. In the
circumstances noticed above, that requirement was not fulfilled. The
subsequent finding that the evidence was “unrebutted” cannot cure the defect,
because the petitioner had been denied an effective opportunity to rebut the
evidence before such finding was recorded. The prejudice caused to the
petitioner is therefore real and not merely technical.

(25). The respondents' reliance upon the alleged illegality of the orders
passed by the petitioner or upon the judgment of this Court dated 02.11.2018
in CWP No.9746 of 2018 and connected matters also does not cure the defect
in the inquiry. Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to “abuse of
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27427-2018 - 9 -




position” under Rule 5(e) had to be determined only after following the
procedure mandated by Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules.

(26). Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the truth or
otherwise of the individual allegations, this Court finds that the inquiry
culminating in the removal order dated 12.06.2018 stands vitiated for failure
to afford an effective opportunity of defence as contemplated by Rule 6 of the
2003 Rules.

(27). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated
11.06.2018, whereby the petitioner's defence was closed, and the
consequential order dated 12.06.2018 removing her from the office of
Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kapurthala, are
hereby quashed.

(28). Since the petitioner's tenure of five years from 10.05.2017 has
already expired, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage. The
petitioner shall, however, be entitled to have her claim for consequential
monetary/service benefits, if any, considered by the competent authority in
accordance with law.

(29). The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(30). Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

31.10.2026
(Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal

Judge
Yes/No
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? :
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document