Civil Writ Petition No.22082 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22082 of 2011 Date of Decision : 29th November, 2011 Dr.Pradeep Dutta ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * K.KANNAN,J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction for taking departmental action against respondent No.4 for the wrongs committed by liar on the ground that he was responsible for registering a false case against the petitioner on fabricated records and was guilty of harassing him by registering a case which he is defending. 2. The further grievance is that on information obtained through RTI Act, the petitioner has come to know that respondent No.4 has tempered with some official records. He has given a complaint which under the relevant rules would require to be forwarded to the District Magistrate for appropriate action. The petitioner would under these circumstances submit that the court shall issue appropriate directions for taking action on the basis of his complaint. 3. Any case which is registered against the petitioner shall be a matter for adjudication before the court where the case is pending and it will be premature to conclude whether there is basis for such a case or Civil Writ Petition No.22082 of 2011 2 not. Law allows for sufficient remedies if false complaint is persued and ultimately the case results in discharge or acquittal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to point out that the departmental inquiry, which has sought to be initiated against the 4 th respondent through respondents 2 and 3 and which has been concluded, has not been properly done at all. The proper procedure ought to have been to of forward the complaint to the District Magistrate but the same was not done. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision in case “State of Haryana and Others vs. Satya Narain” in RSA No.3206 of 2001 dated 20.02.2009 and also refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Union of India Vs. Ram Kishan” 1971(2)Supreme Court Cases, 349 as a case in support of the petitioner's contentions. 5. There is never a public interest in service matters. The complainant, who wants the department to initiate action against its employee, cannot be a member of public as an aggrieved person to come to court to seek for relief. The decision cited before me was a case at the instance of an aggrieved government servant himself and it was not a suit instituted by a 3 rd party. There is no proposition emerging from the judgment that a member of public can approach a court for a direction as to how the department shall treat its own employee through departmental action. 6. In my opinion, it would mean propounding a new jurisprudence to allow for complaints from persons who are not actually drawn in the cadre of particular service to seek for direction from court as to how a department shall proceed with complaints lodged with them. It has to be worked out within the confines of limited jurisdiction available for Civil Writ Petition No.22082 of 2011 3 public and judicial intervention in the manner has sought for cannot avail to the petitioner. 7. If records have been tampered by respondent No.4 acing as such police officer, which according to petitioner constitute criminal offence, it shall be competent for the petitioner to lodge a complaint for the offences under the relevant provisions of law against person who the petitioner believes responsible. If an investigation does not proceed in accordance with law the petitioner will have appropriate remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code to set the law in portion. 8. If a complaint against respondent No.4 has not been forwarded to the District Magistrate, the petitioner again will be at liberty to approach the District Magistrate directly pointing out to the copy of the complaint which had previously been given and the alleged inaction on the part of officer concerned who was bound to have taken appropriate action by a referral to the District Magistrate. 9. Above all, the issue that the petitioner complains of is an incident of the year 2006. Repeated representations by the petitioner will not extend the cause of action. When the case was first registered against him at the instance of 4 th respondent, he ought to have taken steps. The petitioner is guilty of laches. 10. I do not find any interference through this court is necessary. I dispose of the writ petition at the first hearing with the above observations. 29.11.2010 (K.KANNAN) Seema-II Judge