Disposed

Najar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CWP/13603/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash an order withdrawing dismissal of three Beldars convicted of molestation. The Court found that a fresh order of dismissal was passed later and dismissed the petition as infructuous, accepting no oral assurances without written documentation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the dismissal of the accused was reinstated.

Najar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 13603 of 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 13603 of 2011 Date of Decision: January, 19, 2012

¶5

Najar Singh …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Sr. Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶12

Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 20.05.2011 (P-3) passed by the Executive Engineer, Bhakhra Main Line Division, Patialarespondent No.3 withdrawing the dismissal order of three Beldars, namely, S/Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Kulwinder Singh-respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively. The aforesaid accused were convicted under Section 354 IPC after consulting with the office of Superintending Engineer and obtaining legal advice from the District Attorney, Fategarh Sahib. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were found guilty of charge of molesting one Harpreet Kaur @ Pammi in case FIR No. 58 dated 19.06.2001, Police Station Chamkaur Sahib .

¶17

In the reply filed by the respondents, it has now been categorically stated that the fresh order of dismissal of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been passed on 16.09.2011 (R-5).

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No. 13603 of 2011

¶20

The explanation tendered by Sh. B.P.S. Brar, Executive Engineer, BML Division, Patiala is that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had met him and had assured him that there was stay order issued in their favour by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and therefore, their orders of dismissal dated 20.05.2011 were liable to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Chief Engineer/ Water Resources, Irrigation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh for reconsideration which had led to withdrwal of the dismissal order. The explanation tendered by respondent No.3 is far from the satisfaction in any Government Department. No work is transacted on oral assurance as is sought to be projected by respondent No.3. While dismissing the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous because fresh order of dismissal has been passed on 16.09.2011 (R-5), we hereby reject the explanation tendered by respondent No.3. He has been working on the post of Executive Engineer, Bhakhra Main Line Division, Patiala and is warned to be careful. If the conduct highlighted in the present proceedings is repeated then appropriate proceeding shall be initiated against him. A copy of this order be served on respondent No.3.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the

¶22

above terms.

¶23

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶24

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

January 19, 2012 Atul

Najar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. NO.54 through Its Vice President Sr. K. Srikishan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Yanshika Impex Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parmala Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula

Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.