IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16520 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 23, 2009 Harinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-8). Perusal of Order, Annexure P-8, indicates that The Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh, issued directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, to conduct an enquiry. CWP No.16520 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was posted as MHC in Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, during the period 2000-2004 and was holding the charge of Malkhana. On 22.8.2004, the petitioner was transferred to Flying Squad, Punjab, Chandigarh from Ferozepur Range. Without taking the charge of Malkhana from the petitioner, the petitioner was sent to the transferred post. Subsequently, the petitioner presented himself for handing over the charge of Malkhana in September 2004. The amount lying in the Malkhana in relation to various cases/ case property was handed over to Jaswinder Singh, the then MHC, as per Register No.19. The amount was to the tune of Rs.4,15,310/-. Subsequently, the charge of remaining articles was given on 10.5.2005 and relevant entries were made in that regard. It seems that on 28.4.2005, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, made a report to the Director, Vigilance Bureau, to the effect that the petitioner had given money lying in Malkhana on interest to some bank or individual. Copy of the letter addressed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been placed on record as Annexure CWP No.16520 of 2008 [3] P-1. As a consequence of the complaint, the Director, Vigilance Bureau, ordered an enquiry. Be that as it may, after chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, regular enquiry was conducted. Resultant final report in regard to the allegations against the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in Annexure P-5 is that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not proved in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner had not tampered with any of the amount lying in the Malkhana. While agreeing with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it was recommended that the matter be filed. It seems that another enquiry in regard to the same allegations, was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Moga, report whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-6 and is dated 13.3.2008. Again, it was concluded that the petitioner is not guilty. The Officer conducting the enquiry agreed with the previous enquiry report. The matter did not end here and yet another enquiry was ordered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, conducted the enquiry as is evident CWP No.16520 of 2008 [4] from Annexure P-7. Even in the third enquiry, it was concluded that allegations had not been proved and therefore, it was recommended that the matter be filed. Report, Annexure P-7, it seems, was carried to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who approved the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vide the impugned order, it seems that fourth enquiry has been ordered into the same allegations and charges. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the matter had attained finality and no new facts had come on record, fourth enquiry could not have been ordered. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that any new fact had come on record which actuated passing of order, Annexure P-8, ordering fourth enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to justify the action of the respondents for directing fourth enquiry against the petitioner in regard to the same allegations for the same period. I have considered the issue. There is no dispute to the fact CWP No.16520 of 2008 [5] that neither new facts have come on record to call for fourth enquiry nor any material has been pointed out from the record which had not been considered by the earlier enquiry officer. I further find that the impugned order does not notice any lacuna in the earlier enquiry. Rather, there is no fact or material on record which would indicate that some fault was found with the enquiry conducted earlier, either in facts or in procedure. In view of the above, I find that action of the respondents in ordering fourth enquiry in regard to the same allegations/ charges is unreasonable, unjustifiable and therefore, arbitrary. Impugned order, Annexure P-8, is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed subject to costs Rs.5,000/-. (AJAI LAMBA) July 23, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?