Civil Writ Petition No.15383 of 1992 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15383 of 1992 Date of decision: February 19, 2008. Sumer Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. Present: Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Panwar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - In this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constituion, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14.5.1992 (Annexure P-2) whereby fresh inquiry into the charges levelled against him, has been ordered by respondent No.2. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the respondents from holding a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in the charge-sheet dated 1.1.1981. While working as an Assistant Store-keeper in the Punjab Roadways at Muktsar, the petitioner was alleged to have performed his Civil Writ Petition No.15383 of 1992 -: 2 :- duties negligently and dishonestly thereby causing shortages worth Rs.2,58,132.30 and excesses worth Rs.90,570/-. He was accordingly charge-sheeted vide memo dated 1.1.1981. The petitioner, however, contested the allegations which led to holding of a regular inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and based upon his report, show cause notice dated 8.6.1983 was served upon the petitioner along with the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply thereto which, however, did not find favour with the competent authority, who, vide its order dated 4.4.1989, ordered the petitioner's removal from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an 'industrial dispute'. The Labour Court vide its award dated 12.10.1989 held that no proper or valid inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and that relevant documents were also not supplied to him despite demand, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. The Labour Court, after referring to the instructions issued by the Department regarding responsibility to maintain the stocks and stores and the manner of physical verification of the stocks, further held as follows:- “11. The instructions issued by the Director, State Transport, Punjab vide Ex.W/5 have not been complied with, rather respondents have flouted those instructions perhaps with a view to shield the Chief Store Keeper who was to be held responsible for the shortages and excesses found on verification of the store.” The Labour Court accordingly declared that the order of removal of services of the petitioner was unjustified and illegal. The petitioner was held entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. Civil Writ Petition No.15383 of 1992 -: 3 :- Pursuant to the Labour Court award, which was published in the Govt. Gazette on 16.2.1990, the petitioner was reinstated on 28.6.1990. He was, however, served with the impugned order dated 14.5.1992 (Annexure P-2) whereby it was decided “to re-investigate the charges” against him in accordance with rules. A new inquiry officer was also appointed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It may be noticed here that while issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order dated 14.5.1992 was stayed. It is the conceded position that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.2006. His retiral benefits, however, have been withheld due to pendency of this case. The only question which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the order of removal passed against the petitioner was set aside by the learned Labour Court only on the ground of non-observance of the principles of fair and just play or was he 'exonerated' of the charges also. In Para 10 of its award dated 12.10.1989, the learned Labour Court has categorically observed that the respondent – management “could produce evidence even in this Court to substantiate the allegations as set out against the workman but no attempt has been made by the respondents to prove the allegations...”. The Labour Court thereafter has held that the workman has placed on record instructions, Ex.W/5, issued by the Director, State Transport, Punjab and that while holding him guilty, these instructions have not been complied with, rather “the respondents have flouted those instructions perhaps with a view to shield the Chief Store Keeper who was Civil Writ Petition No.15383 of 1992 -: 4 :- to be held responsible for the shortages and excesses found on verification of the store”. In my considered view, the above stated finding of fact, in sum and substance amounts to petitioner's exoneration on merits as well. Besides this, the petitioner having already retired from service, no inquiry can be permitted to be held against him at this stage. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14.5.1992 is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, the respondents are directed to release his retiral benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of expiry of the said period of four months till actual payment thereof. February 19, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge