Ram Kumar Bansal vs State Of Punjab And Others

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-30504-2024 (O&M)

Ram Kumar Bansal ... Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 07.08.2026
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. GS Bal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG Punjab

Sandeep Moudgil, J.


(1). The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 23.03.2021
(Annexure P-25), whereby he was repatriated from the post of Secretary, State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (Group-A), to the post of
Junior Scale Stenographer in District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Group-C), as also order dated 18.10.2023
(Annexure P-32), whereby his request for recall/review of the aforesaid action
was declined. The petitioner also seeks consequential benefits including
restoration of his status, seniority, pay, increments and other service benefits.

(2). The brief facts are that petitioner was initially appointed as Steno-
Typist in the O/o District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 14.10.1996.
Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer in the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 2 -




13.05.1997 (Annexure P-4). The said order specifically records the
appointment against a vacant post and also records that the appointment was
against a temporary post and that the incumbent would not retain lien against
his substantive post in the parent department. On 03.09.2003, the petitioner was
transferred from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh
Sahib, to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, as
Junior Scale Stenographer. The order (Annexure P-5) records that the petitioner
was transferred to the State Commission "in public interest" with immediate
effect. The petitioner thereafter continued in the State Commission and was
promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on 10.06.2005, as Judgment Writer on
10.01.2008 and, subsequently, as Secretary on 23.12.2014. His appointment as
Secretary was also notified in the Punjab Government Gazette dated
16.01.2015.

(3). It is the petitioner’s case that he while working as Secretary had
accompanied the then President of the State Commission who happens to be a
retired High Court Judge (respondent No.4), on inspection tours of various
District Fora. According to the petitioner, a complaint dated 02.11.2020 was
thereafter submitted under an assumed name containing serious allegations
concerning the conduct of respondent No.4. It is further asserted that when an
explanation was sought from respondent No.4, the petitioner was asked to
furnish an affidavit denying that he had accompanied the President on the
inspection tours, which he declined to do as, according to him, he had in fact
accompanied the President and had even claimed TA/DA for those tours.
Immediately thereafter respondent No.4 became inimical towards him and a
series of show-cause notices and charge-sheets came to be issued against him
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 3 -




within a short span of time. The petitioner relies upon the subsequent enquiry
proceedings to contend that the allegations levelled against him were not
established and that the Enquiry Officers exonerated him in the respective
proceedings.

(4). In the meantime, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings which
ultimately culminated in order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-25) whereby he
was ordered to be repatriated from the posts of Secretary and join his parent
department as Junior Scale Stenographer on the ground that he was an
employee of the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib and that his transfer to the
State Commission in 2003 was only a transfer simpliciter against an ex-cadre
post besides the fact that he did not possess requisite qualification.

(5). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action in CWP No.8033 of
2021. During the pendency of the proceedings, several departmental enquiries
were conducted against him. In particular, in the enquiry arising out of charge-
sheet No.5601 dated 15.06.2021, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges
proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report was accepted and the
petitioner was subsequently reinstated by the President, District Commission,
Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 16.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner moved
an application before this Court seeking appropriate relief in respect of his
repatriation. Vide order dated 14.09.2023, the matter was directed to be
considered by the President of the State Commission and vide order dated
18.10.2023 (Annexure P-32), the claim of the petitioner was rejected
principally on the reasoning that the order of repatriation dated 23.03.2021 had
not been quashed by the High Court and, therefore, the President could not
quash the same. The petitioner thereafter sought recall/reconsideration of the
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 4 -




earlier order, but the application was dismissed with liberty to challenge the
subsequent order.

(6). Hence this writ petition.
Petitioner’s contentions

(7). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
admittedly transferred to the State Commission vide order dated 03.09.2003
and the said order nowhere describes his transfer as ‘on deputation’ or
temporary attachment or that he would be holding an ex-cadre posting or a
posting subject to repatriation. The order merely records that the petitioner was
transferred as Junior Scale Stenographer in the State Commission in public
interest.

(8). It is argued that there were no statutory service rules governing
the employees of the State Commission at the relevant time and the State
Commission itself was making appointments and promotions in accordance
with the administrative procedure then prevailing. The petitioner was thereafter
promoted successively in the State Commission and ultimately appointed as
Secretary, a Group-A post, in 2014 which was notified in the Punjab
Government Gazette also.

(9). Learned counsel submits that the State Commission cannot, after
having itself appointed, promoted and continued the petitioner for nearly
eighteen years, retrospectively declare in 2021 that his entire service in the
State Commission was on an ex-cadre basis and that the promotions granted by
the competent authority were illegal. If the respondents contend that the
petitioner was never part of the State Commission cadre, they must identify the
statutory provision or rule which prohibited his transfer in 2003 and which
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 5 -




authorised the respondents, after nearly two decades, to annul the consequences
of the orders passed by the competent authorities.

(10). It is further submitted that the impugned order (Annexure P-25)
travels far beyond a simple order of repatriation as the petitioner was not
merely sent back from one equivalent post to another but he was was removed
from the post of Secretary, a Group-A post which he had held since 2014, and
sent to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer, a Group-C post and therefore,
since the impugned action carries serious civil and service consequences,
therefore, it cannot be immunised from judicial scrutiny merely by describing it
as "repatriation".

(11). It is also submitted that the petitioner was subjected to several
proceedings within a short span of time and the Enquiry Officers did not
establish the charges against him. He submits that this sequence of events,
when considered with the allegations made by him against respondent No.4 and
his refusal to support what he claims to have been a false version regarding the
inspection tours, demonstrates that the impugned action was actuated by
personal animosity and mala fide.
Contentions of the respondents

(12). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the petitioner was originally appointed in the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, and his parent cadre therefore remained that
of the District Commission. According to the respondents, the order dated
03.09.2003 did not constitute appointment by transfer in the State Commission
but was only a transfer simpliciter in public interest. It is submitted that the
petitioner was never absorbed in the cadre of the State Commission. His
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 6 -




placement in the State Commission was therefore against an ex-cadre post and
he could not claim any vested right to continue there merely because he had
remained there for a long period.

(13). The respondents further contend that the petitioner did not possess
the requisite educational qualification of graduation when he was transferred to
the State Commission and even when he was promoted as Senior Scale
Stenographer in 2005. It is submitted that the draft regulations and the
applicable service conditions contemplated graduation for the relevant post and
that an appointment or promotion made contrary thereto could not create a legal
right in favour of the petitioner.

(14). Learned counsel relies upon the distinction between "transfer" and
"recruitment by transfer", and contended that a transfer simpliciter does not
amount to recruitment to another service or cadre. According to the
respondents, since the petitioner was never recruited to the State Commission
cadre, he continued to belong to the District Commission and was liable to be
repatriated. He then submits that the length of service cannot validate an
appointment or promotion which was contrary to the governing rules and as
such, no estoppel can operate against statutory provisions and no right can be
claimed merely on the ground that the petitioner continued on the post for
several years.
Analysis

(15). From the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on
record, the factual position which emerges is that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer in the District Consumer Forum,
Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 13.05.1997 (Annexure P-4 ). He was
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 7 -




thereafter transferred to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Punjab vide order dated 03.09.2003 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner continued
to serve in the State Commission thereafter and, during the course of such
service, was successively promoted to the posts of Senior Scale Stenographer,
Judgment Writer and ultimately Secretary and now after continuously serving
for nearly 18 years, he has been repatriated to his parent establishment on the
ground that he continued to retain his substantive status in the District
Consumer Forum and that his service in the State Commission was only ex-
cadre/temporary service. The dispute, therefore, is essentially as to the true
nature and effect of the order dated 03.09.2003 and the consequences of the
petitioner's subsequent service in the State Commission.

(16). The first and central question is the nature of the order dated
03.09.2003 (Annexure P-5). The respondents' case is that the petitioner
continued to remain borne on the establishment of the District Consumer
Forum and was only permitted to serve in the State Commission on an ex-cadre
basis. If that was indeed the arrangement, the respondents were required to
demonstrate the same from the order itself or from the applicable rules and
subsequent orders regulating the petitioner's service. A deputation is ordinarily
a temporary transfer outside the cadre or parent department and, upon its
conclusion, the employee returns to the parent establishment. This is the settled
position explained by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh ,
(1997) 8 SCC 372 .

(17). In the present case, however, the respondents have not been able
to point out any fixed period of deputation prescribed by the order dated
03.09.2003 . There is also no material shown to indicate that the petitioner's
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 8 -




deputation was periodically extended by separate orders or that he was
informed during the intervening period that he continued to hold only a
temporary/ex-cadre assignment in the State Commission. The petitioner,
instead, continued in the State Commission from 03.09.2003 till the passing of
the impugned order on 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-25), i.e. for nearly 18 years
and was successively promoted firstly as Senior Scale Stenographer vide order
dated 10.06.2005, with effect from 21.06.2005 (Annexure P-7) and then as
Judgment Writer on 10.01.2008 (Annexure P-8) followed by his promotion as
Secretary vide order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) duly notified in Punjab
Government Gazette on 16.01.2015 (Annexure P-13).

(18). These were not isolated or accidental orders. They were
successive orders of the competent authority under which the petitioner
continued to discharge higher responsibilities in the State Commission. The
impugned order does not satisfactorily explain how an employee who was
allegedly only occupying an ex-cadre post could be successively promoted to
higher posts of the same establishment for such a prolonged period.

(19). The legality of the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure
P-25) has to be examined on the basis of the reasons recorded therein. The
order proceeds on three principal premises: firstly, that the petitioner continued
to be an employee of the District Consumer Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Secondly, that his transfer to the State Commission on 03.09.2003 was only a
transfer simpliciter against an ex-cadre post. And thirdly, that his subsequent
promotions in the State Commission were consequently against ex-cadre posts
and could not confer any right upon him to continue there.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 9 -





(20). The order dated 03.09.2003 (Annexure P-5) specifically
transferred the petitioner, then working as Junior Scale Stenographer in the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, as Junior Scale
Stenographer in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab,
“in public interest”, with immediate effect. The order directed him to relinquish
charge at Fatehgarh Sahib and assume charge in the State Commission.
Significantly, it neither describes the petitioner as being sent on deputation nor
prescribes any period for such posting nor states that he would retain a lien in
the District Commission or would be repatriated after a specified period. The
subsequent description of the order as a transfer to an “ex-cadre post” in the
impugned order cannot substitute the contents of the order itself.

(21). It is true that the Supreme Court in Palure Bhaskar Rao and
others v. P. Ramaseshaiah and others , (2017) 5 SCC 783 , has distinguished
transfer simpliciter from recruitment by transfer as the former ordinarily
involves a change of place of employment within the same cadre, and the latter
is a method of induction into another category, cadre or service. The said
principle, however, does not conclude the controversy in favour of the
respondents. It requires the Court to examine the nature of the service, the
governing rules and the actual order by which the employee was moved. In the
present case, the respondents have not demonstrated from the order dated
03.09.2003 or from any contemporaneous order that the petitioner was placed
in the State Commission for a temporary tenure or on deputation with an
obligation to return to the District Commission.

(22). The respondents have attempted to answer this aspect by
contending that the promotions themselves were illegal because the petitioner
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 10 -




was not borne on the State Commission cadre. This reasoning, however, is
circular. The petitioner's absence from the cadre is treated as the basis for
declaring his promotions illegal, while the alleged illegality of the promotions
is then relied upon to establish that he was never part of the State Commission
establishment. The foundational question of his status therefore cannot be
answered merely by describing his subsequent promotions as illegal. The
respondents were required to establish the applicable rule governing his transfer
and cadre status and then demonstrate, with reference to that rule, the legal
consequence of the order dated 03.09.2003.

(23). The allegation regarding educational qualification also does not
provide a sufficient basis for sustaining the impugned order which says that the
petitioner was only 10+2 on 03.09.2003 and that graduation was required under
the Draft Regulations of 1999. The respondents, however, have not
demonstrated in the impugned order the existence of a duly notified statutory
rule which prohibited the transfer in question on that ground. A draft
regulation, by itself, cannot be treated as an enforceable service rule unless it is
shown that it had acquired legal force on the relevant date. In any event, the
alleged deficiency in qualification at the time of the subsequent promotion in
2005 is a separate issue from the petitioner's cadre status pursuant to the
transfer order dated 03.09.2003.

(24). The distinction is important because even if the respondents
considered any particular promotion to have been irregular, the appropriate
question would be the legality and consequences of that particular promotion
under the applicable service rules. That circumstance, without more, does not
establish that the transfer itself was temporary or ex-cadre. The impugned order
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 11 -




conflates these two distinct questions and, on that basis, reaches the conclusion
that the petitioner could be repatriated to the District Commission.

(25). There is also considerable force in the petitioner's contention that
the respondents cannot, after permitting him to serve continuously in the State
Commission from 03.09.2003 and after granting him successive promotions,
reopen his status after nearly 18 years without identifying the statutory
provision which authorised such action. The petitioner did not secure the
transfer or the subsequent promotions by any order passed by himself. Each
stage of his service was governed by orders of the competent authority. The
respondents were fully aware of his service position. If his transfer was only
temporary or ex-cadre, the relevant order or service record ought to have
disclosed that position. The absence of such stipulation in the transfer order,
followed by the subsequent service history, assumes significance.

(26). The contention that continuation of the petitioner in the State
Commission would prejudice other employees also cannot independently
sustain the order. The rights of other employees cannot be used to
retrospectively invalidate an otherwise operative service arrangement without
first establishing that the petitioner's own placement and progression were
contrary to a specific statutory provision. Administrative convenience or a
perceived promotional claim of other employees cannot take the place of the
statutory foundation required for repatriating an employee after such a long
period.

(27). The respondents have also relied upon the distinction between
repatriation and reversion and have held that repatriation does not amount to a
punishment under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 12 -




Appeal) Rules, 1970. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition that
a genuine repatriation of a deputationist to his parent cadre is not, by itself, a
punishment. But the applicability of that principle depends upon the prior
determination that the employee was in fact serving outside his cadre on
deputation or under a temporary arrangement. In the present case, that
foundational fact has not been established. Therefore, the mere use of the
expression “repatriation” in the impugned order cannot make the order legally
valid.

(28). The subsequent order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-32) also
does not cure the aforesaid defect. By that order, the State Commission
principally proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had projected before
this Court in CWP No.8033 of 2021 that his repatriation was a consequence of
charge-sheet No.5601 dated 15.06.2021. The respondents are correct to the
limited extent that the charge-sheet was issued after the order dated 23.03.2021
and, therefore, could not have been the basis of that order. However, this
factual aspect does not determine the legality of the order dated 23.03.2021, nor
does it answer the petitioner's substantive claim for consequential relief after
his exoneration.

(29). The order dated 14.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.8033
of 2021, as reproduced in Annexure P-32, arose out of the disciplinary
proceedings pursuant to charge-sheet No.5601 dated 15.06.2021 and the
acceptance of the enquiry report dated 05.05.2023. Therefore, the authority was
required to consider the effect of the petitioner's exoneration and the
consequential relief claimed by him in the light of the said order. Instead, the
impugned order (Annexure P-32) substantially proceeds to explain why the
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 13 -




repatriation order dated 23.03.2021 was independent of the subsequent
disciplinary proceedings. While that chronology may be factually correct, it
does not by itself constitute compliance with the direction of this Court. There
is a distinction between passing an order after a judgment and passing an order
in compliance with the judgment . The latter requires consideration of the claim
in the manner and within the scope of the direction issued by the Court.

(30). Significantly, the impugned order itself proceeds to treat the
petitioner's alleged status as an employee of the District Commission and his
transfer in 2003 as a mere transfer simpliciter to an ex-cadre post as the basis
for denying relief. Thus, the very issue which forms the foundation of the order
dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-25) has again been reiterated in the impugned
order (Annexure P-32) which neither identifies any fresh statutory provision
nor brings on record any order of deputation, fixed tenure, retention of lien or
stipulation for repatriation which was absent from the order dated 03.09.2003.
Consequently, Annexure P-32 does not independently establish the legal basis
on which the petitioner could be repatriated after nearly 18 years of continuous
service in the State Commission.

(31). The authority was also not justified in treating the petitioner's
claim for consequential relief as an assertion that the repatriation order dated
23.03.2021 itself had been passed on account of the subsequent charge-sheet.
The two proceedings may be independent in time and origin, nevertheless, once
the petitioner had been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, the authority
was required to consider what relief, if any, followed from such exoneration in
terms of the order of this Court. Instead, the impugned order (Annexure P-32)
principally uses the subsequent charge-sheet and the earlier date of repatriation
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 14 -




to deny the petitioner's claim, without independently addressing the
consequence of the exoneration. To that extent, the order does not amount to
substantive compliance with the order dated 14.09.2023.

(32). At the same time, the Court is not called upon in the present
proceedings to hold that the order dated 14.09.2023 itself adjudicated the
petitioner's cadre status. That question has to be examined independently on the
basis of the service record and the applicable rules. What is material is that the
impugned order (Annexure P-32) could neither treat the earlier order of this
Court as having been complied with merely by passing a subsequent order nor
use the occasion to conclusively sustain the disputed cadre status without
establishing its statutory foundation.

(33). The Court, therefore, finds that both impugned orders proceed
upon the same unsubstantiated premise that the petitioner continued to belong
to the District Commission cadre and that his entire service in the State
Commission was against ex-cadre posts and instead of curing the deficiencies,
substantially reiterates the reasoning of the earlier order (Annexure P-25).

(34). In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-25) and the
subsequent order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-32), are hereby quashed.

(35). The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to the
position which he occupied in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission immediately prior to the passing of the order dated 23.03.2021,
with all consequential service benefits. The period during which the petitioner
remained out of the State Commission pursuant to the impugned order shall be
treated in accordance with his entitlement as if the impugned order had not
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.02 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-30504-2024 - 15 -




been passed. His continuity of service, status and consequential benefits shall
be worked out accordingly. It is clarified that the above directions shall not
result in any recovery from the petitioner of the salary or other monetary
benefits already paid to him for the service actually rendered.

four weeks
(36). Let the needful be done within a period of from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(37). The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(38). Pending application(s), if any, stand 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