No Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Initiated After Dismissal Of Employee From Service: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the relationship of employer and employee has been conclusively severed by way of dismissal, the employer becomes functus officio and loses the jurisdiction to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings against the dismissed employee.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The foundational axiom governing disciplinary jurisdiction is the indispensable requirement of a subsisting jural relationship of master and servant, or employer and employee. This jurisdiction is inherently contingent upon the employee's active status within the organization."

The Court further explained, , the moment a legal separation from service occurs, whether through final dismissal, removal, resignation-accepted, superannuation, or any other form of termination, the individual ceases to be subject to the employer's disciplinary control. The authority to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings is, as a general rule, extinguished at this point.

"This principle is rooted in the very nature of the confidential and mutual relationship of employment, which cannot be imposed unilaterally once severed. Therefore, absent an explicit statutory provision or a specific clause in the service rules that expressly preserves this power for actions committed during service, an employer is legally incapacitated from commencing or proceeding with disciplinary action against a former employee," the bench added.

It made it clear that  any notion of extending this relationship post-severance cannot be sustained by assumption, legal fiction, or a mere "deeming" provision without clear and unambiguous legal backing.

"The rules must explicitly provide for such contingencies, such as inquiries continuing after retirement for the specific purpose of withholding or withdrawing pensionary benefits. In essence, the termination of the contract of service definitively bars the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary jurisdiction, underscoring that such power is not an inherent or perpetual right but one strictly derived from and limited by the ongoing employer-employee nexus," the Court said.

Justice Brar highlighted that, "severance of the master-service relation between the employer and employee would incapacitate the employer to start disciplinary proceedings against a former employee in absence of explicit statutory laws enabling it."

The petitioner, who was serving as an Inspector Grade-II with the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, was convicted by the Special Judge, Moga, on 14.10.2013 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on the said conviction, the Corporation passed an order dated 31.10.2013 dismissing him from service.

In 2016, the Corporation filed civil suits to recover alleged financial losses from several employees, which were later withdrawn against co-accused officials to initiate departmental action against them. However, the suits were not withdrawn against the petitioner. Instead, the Corporation issued three charge sheets dated 27.04.2017 and 17.07.2017—nearly four years after the dismissal order.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned charge sheets were legally unsustainable since the petitioner's dismissal had severed the employer-employee relationship, thereby extinguishing the Corporation's disciplinary jurisdiction.

It was contended that under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, disciplinary action can only be taken against a “Government employee,” and once dismissal takes effect, the person ceases to hold that status.

The petitioner also argued that Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which allows for post-retirement proceedings to withhold or withdraw pension, had no application since employees of the Corporation were not governed by any pension scheme.

The Court observed that the dismissal order dated 31.10.2013 had effectively severed the vinculum juris—the jural bond—between the petitioner and the Corporation. Once the relationship of master and servant is terminated, the employer ceases to have disciplinary control over the former employee.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Bank v. Mahaveer Khariwal, (2021) 2 SCC 632, the Court reiterated that once an employee's service stands terminated, whether by dismissal, resignation, or retirement, the disciplinary authority loses jurisdiction unless a statutory rule explicitly preserves such power.

“The termination of the contract of service definitively bars the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Such power is not inherent or perpetual but strictly derived from the ongoing employer-employee nexus,” the Court emphasized.

It further noted that Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II (which allows proceedings for withholding pension) was inapplicable, as the petitioner was not entitled to any pension under the Corporation's service terms.

Holding that the respondent-Corporation had become functus officio upon the petitioner's dismissal, the Court concluded that the subsequent charge sheets and enquiries were without jurisdiction.

Ms. Sunaina, Advocate with Mr. H.C. Arora and Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the respondents.

Title: Suresh Jindal v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 431

Click here to read order