Allowed

Om Parkash v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2012CWP/15491/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a former Assistant Store Keeper, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the order directing reinvestigation against the petitioner, analogizing his case with that of a comity employee (Sumer Singh) where such an order was previously set aside. The Court directed the release of retiral benefits.

What did the court decide?

Annexure P-2 (order directing reinvestigation) quashed; Respondents directed to release retiral benefits within 4 months with 7% per annum interest for delay.

Om Parkash Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 15491 of 1992

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 15491 of 1992 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision : 26.11.2012

Om Parkash

.. Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. J. S. Jaidka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as well as one Sumer Singh, both were working as Assistant Store Keeper in the Punjab Roadways at Muktsar. They were charge-sheeted for the same incident vide charge-sheet dated 1.1.1981. After enquiry was held, they were directed to be dismissed. However, the learned court below set aside the order of their dismissal.

¶14

Thereafter, vide order, Annexure P-2, the competent authority directed for reinvestigation of the matter against the petitioner and Sumer Singh. Sumer Singh filed CWP No. 15383 of 1992 Sumer Singh vs State of Punjab and others in this court challenging fresh initiation of enquiry against him. At the time of admission, further proceedings in the enquiry were stayed. Finally, vide judgment dated 19.2.2008, the order initiating fresh enquiry was quashed. As the petitioner therein had already been retired, the respondents were directed to release his retiral dues within a period of four months.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also similarly placed as for the same incident, charge-sheet was issued against him and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. The order of

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 15491 of 1992

¶17

dismissal was set aside by the learned court below. The competent authority directed for reinvestigation of the matter against the petitioner. Further proceedings in the enquiry were stayed by this court at the time of admission of the writ petition.

¶18

It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order directing for reinvestigation of the charges levelled against the similarly placed employee namely Sumer Singh has been set aside by this court, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same relief.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is similarly placed with Sumer Singh. The judgment in Sumer Singh's case (supra) is also not in dispute. The same has attained finality as no further appeal has been filed against that judgment.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, in my opinion, when the petitioner as well as Sumer Singh both were charge-sheeted for the same incident and the decision of the authorities to reinvestigate the matter in the case of Sumer Singh has been set aside by this court, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same relief.

¶22

Accordingly, Annexure P-2 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶25

26.11.2012 vs

Om Parkash v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash v. State of Pb.Etc.

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

Fazal Masih Vs Punjab University and Anr.

Lalman Verma Vs Punjab State Power Cum Ltd. Patiala

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

(O&M) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr. Vs Rennie and Ors.

Mangat Singh Vs Labour Court Jalandhar & Anr.

Baljit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab