IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10445 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2009 Sukhwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing suspension order dated 17.7.1989 (P-4) and termination order dated 25.7.1989 (P-5). It is conceded position that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis as Patwari on 29.1.1987 (P-2). An FIR No. 175, dated 5.7.1989, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 IPC, was registered against him, which constituted the basis for suspension as well as termination. According to the petitioner the FIR did not disclose that any voucher or authority was given to him to withdraw any amount from the treasury. A copy of the FIR has been placed on record (P-3). 2. When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, the operation of termination order was C.W.P. No. 10445 of 1989 stayed on 17.8.1989 and the stay order was reiterated on 13.9.1989. The petition was eventually admitted. 3. In the written statement broad facts are admitted. However, it has been claimed that the petitioner’s services could be terminated with one month’s notice. A copy of the appointment letter dated 29.1.1987 has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It is, thus, clear that the termination of the petitioner was stayed but no stay order was passed with regard to his suspension or holding of an inquiry. There are serious allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner for having embezzled Rs. 98,000/- as per the FIR. He was arrested and a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was recovered from him. There is nothing on record to show as to the subsequent progress of the case or the result of the FIR. However, the same may not be necessary to decide the fate of the termination order. 4. Having heard learned State counsel, I am of the view that termination order passed by the respondents is un-sustainable in the eyes of law because no such order could have been passed without holding an inquiry. The termination order appears to have been passed merely on the registration of the FIR No. 175, dated 5.7.1989. Accordingly, the termination order dated 25.7.1989 (P-5) is set aside. However, quashing of termination order would not affect either the criminal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings, which might have been initiated against the petitioner after registration of the FIR. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) March 31, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2