IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14333 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 17, 2010 Bakhshish Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to order of suspension. While considering the issue on 16.8.2010, the following order was passed:- “Learned contends that by virtue of the impugned orders/directions, the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against in regular enquiry proceedings. The language of order, Annexure P-6, directing regular enquiry, however, shows that the respondents have already reached the conclusion that the case against the petitioner stands established. Learned counsel states that this shall clearly prejudice the mind of the enquiry officer. Learned counsel contends that even the charges have been so worded that they indicate pre-determination of mind. Notice of motion for 27.9.2010. In the meantime, further proceedings as a CWP No.14333 of 2010 [2] consequence of orders, Annexure P-6 and P-7, shall remain stayed. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents in Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that similar order was passed by the same authority in another case. Interim directions were issued where-against the State of Punjab went in Latter’s Patent Appeal (LPA No.1094 of 2010, decided on 1.9.2010). The stand taken by the respondent-State before the LPA Bench is that the impugned order would be withdrawn and fresh order in accordance with law would be passed. Similar is the stand of the respondent-State in the present case. 3. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State, Orders Annexure P-6 and P-7 are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) September 17, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?