Dismissed

Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2010CWP/18969/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's claim for quashing the order denying annual increments due to pending disciplinary proceedings. It directed the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry within six months and the competent authority to decide within one month thereafter.

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18969 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 11, 2010.

Daljit Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) whereby respondent No.3 has with-held the release of annual increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 27.8.1997. He also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the afore-stated increments and pay the arrears alongwith interest.

¶17

The petitioner was appointed as a Warder in Mental Hospital, Amritsar vide appointment letter dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure P-1). As per clause 11 of the appointment letter, the petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years. Clause 2 of the appointment letter provides that

¶18

C.W.P.No .18969 of 2007 (O&M) 2

¶19

services of the petitioner could be terminated without assigning any reason in the event of his character and antecedents not found satisfactory or if his work and conduct was found to be dissatisfactory.

¶20

While on probation, the petitioner is said to have assaulted and misbehaved with a lady employee, namely, Satnam Kaur, also a Warder of the hospital on 17.6.1998 during duty hours. The said incident led to registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and his coaccused under Sections 353, 354, 323/34 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. Simultaneously, a charge-sheet dated 24.2.1999 (Annexure R-1) was also served upon the petitioner.

¶21

In the criminal case, notwithstanding the reiteration of allegations by the complainant Satnam Kaur, coupled with the depositions of other prosecution witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has granted the “benefit of doubt” to the petitioner and acquitted him of the charges vide judgment dated 24.3.2009.

¶22

The disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge-sheet dated 24.2.1999, however, were apparently kept in abeyance due to pendency of the criminal proceedings. After the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case, the department appears to have appointed an Enquiry Officer who has been asked to conclude the proceedings within a period of 3 months.

¶23

On his acquittal in criminal case, the petitioner represented the authorities to release his annual increments and clear his probation period, which has been declined by the competent authority vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) giving rise to this writ petition.

¶24

C.W.P.No .18969 of 2007 (O&M) 3

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records.

¶26

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on two decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) G.M.Tank versus State of Gujrat and others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, and (ii) Jasbir Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others, (2007 (1) SCC 566, as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Goel versus State of Haryana and another (2007 (2) RSJ 119, is wholly misconceived for the reasons that (i) the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner on 14.2.2009 has not been assailed and is not a subject matter of challenge in these writ proceeding; (ii) in the three cases, referred to above, the delinquent employee earned honourable acquittal on merits and not merely on the basis of “benefit of doubt”. Be that as it may, the said issue would be examined in some appropriate proceedings; (iii) in the absence of any challenge to the charge-sheet, it cannot be conclusively held that allegations contained therein are identical to the charges framed in the criminal case.

¶27

So far as the impugned order (Annexure P-6) is concerned, in my considered view, no disfavour has been done to the petitioner by withholding the annual increments and by keeping the same in abeyance till the decision of the departmental proceedings. As noticed above, the petitioner was on probation when the alleged misconduct of assaulting and misbehaving with a lady employee, namely, Satnam Kaur, Warder of the hospital, was committed by him and on the basis of which the competent

¶28

C.W.P.No .18969 of 2007 (O&M) 4

¶29

authority could dispense with his services while on probation without assigning any reason. The petitioner was, however, retained in service and release of annual increments or clearance of probation period has been postponed by the authorities till the decision of the departmental proceedings. The only effective relief which can be granted to the petitioner is to expedite disposal of the departmental proceedings.

¶30

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months subject to cooperation to be extended by the petitioner. The competent authority shall take an appropriate decision within one month thereafter. In the event of exoneration of the petitioner, the necessary orders regarding release of his with-held service benefits shall also be passed.

¶31

Dasti.

¶32

11-02-2010 Mohinder

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitter Singh Clerk & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sardara Singh etc. Vs Punjab State etc.

Mehar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Its Chief Secy. and Ors.

Lekh Raj & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Beant Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.