Disposed

Girdhari Lal Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2011CWP/10331/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner sought quashing of an enquiry report for vested in regular service. The court directed the petitioner to answer pending queries and ordered the enquiry officer to reconsider the matter and submit a fresh report.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the petitioner to respond to queries; order to reconsider the matter and submit a fresh report within three months.

Girdhari Lal Bansal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.10331 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2011

Girdhari Lal Bansal

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr. SS Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner *****

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶13

(1). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. BS Chahal, learned DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage.

¶14

(2). The petitioner seeks a direction for the release of retiral benefits till the date of his retirement on the basis of the enquiry report dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure P7) conducted by respondent No.7 in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.14465 of 2006 filed by him earlier. In the said enquiry, though the identity of the petitioner is said to have been established but the retiral benefits have been ordered to be granted only till 06.11.1970. The petitioner is aggrieved by the enquiry report (Annexure P7)

¶15

2 –

¶16

CWP No.10331 of 2011.doc

¶17

only to that extent and seeks its quashing. He also seeks quashing of the enquiry report dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P8) submitted by the second enquiry officer which is contrary to the earlier report (Annexure P7).

¶18

(3). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that unless the petitioner responds to the queries raised by the Enquiry Officer in para 6 of his report dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P8) and gets a finding of fact in his favour, his claim for retiral dues cannot be accepted.

¶19

(4). Faced with this learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wiling to respond to all the queries raised by the enquiry officer in para 6 of the report dated 13.07.2010.

¶20

(5). Having regard to the age of the petitioner and the fact that his claim pertains to the release of retiral dues, it appears expedient and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner is willing to respond in writing to the queries raised by the enquiry officer in his report dated 13.07.2010 (para 6) and/or any other query which may be necessary to arrive at a just and fair conclusion, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the enquiry officer, notwithstanding the earlier

¶21

3 –

¶22

CWP No.10331 of 2011.doc

¶23

conclusion drawn by him, shall re-consider the whole matter and submit a comprehensive report with specific conclusions as early as possible and preferably within three months of receipt of the answers from the petitioner to the

¶24

queries.

¶25

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶26

14.07.2011 vishal shonkar

¶27

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Girdhari Lal Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Lal Bansal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Smt.Satya Kansal (Directions) Vs Pb.St. (Pension)

Manjinder Singh Boparai etc. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.