Disposed

Ravinder Singh Ravi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2024CWP/1013/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition against a Labour Officer for inaction on complaints. The Court held that an inquiry had already started. It closed the petition but directed the inquiry to be completed within two months. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; no direction given for removal. The inquiry initiated against Respondent No. 3 must be completed within two months.

Ravinder Singh Ravi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 1013 of 2021 Decided on: 8^th April, 2024

¶3

Ravinder Singh Ravi .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the petitioner: Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Addl. A.G for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶7

By way of instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶8

“It is, therefore, prayed that this petition may be allowed and respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to take immediate appropriate action against respondent No.3 for his removal from service. Also, till the disposal of this writ petition, respondent

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

¶11

No.3 may be directed not to exercise his powers as Labour Officer.”

¶12

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the instant petition and further canvassed by Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though repeatedly complaints came to be made against respondent No.3 for his having indulged in the illegal activities, but no action has been taken till date.

¶13

To substantiate the aforesaid allegations against respondent No.3, the petitioner has placed on record number of documents, but bare perusal of letter dated 15.02.2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. to the Commissioner, Labour & Employment Department, H.P. Shimla suggests that respondent No.3 is openly defying the orders of the superiors. Vide aforesaid communication, Deputy Commissioner, Chamba apprised the Commissioner, Labour & Employment Department that the Labour Officer Chamba is not processing the cases of eligible MNREGA workers under Labour Welfare Board, and what to talk about the implementation of the aforesaid directions, aforesaid officer never bothered to report back to the Deputy Commissioner and in such a situation, vide aforesaid

¶14

¶15

communication, while recommending strict departmental action against respondent No.3, he has also requested the Commissioner, Labour & Employment Department to direct the aforesaid person to appear before him in the departmental meeting.

¶16

Pursuant to the notice in the said proceedings, respondents have filed reply.

¶17

Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply filed under the signatures of Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment, Himachal Pradesh have categorically stated that in order to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled in the complaints, as detailed above, inquiry has been entrusted to the CEO of the workers Welfare Board of respondent No.3, vide order dated 22.04.2021 and the report thereof is awaited.

¶18

Respondent No.3 in its reply has also acknowledged the factum with regard to initiation of inquiry. He has stated that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner and after initiation of disciplinary action, he has been warned to be careful in future and respondent No.3 aggrieved by the said order, has filed CWP No. 3792 of 2020, which is pending adjudication.

¶19

¶20

Since it is apparent from the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, an inquiry stands initiated against respondent No.3, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and the same are accordingly closed, however, with a direction to the CEO of the workers Welfare Board to ensure that the inquiry entrusted to him against respondent No.3 be completed within two months from today. Needless to say that authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as delinquent officer and pass a speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

¶21

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

April 08, 2024 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (naveen) Judge

Ravinder Singh Ravi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Ravi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Tikkam Ram Vs Yusus Khan

Dev Raj Vs Yusus Khan

Virender Singh Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Nand Lal and others Vs Sikandar and another

Hpnlu Vs Hpstate Information Commission