In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1884 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 05, 2009 State of Punjab and others .. Petitioners Vs. Amrik Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Nevertheless, the civil court cannot sit over the Enquiry Authority, but certainly could see “whether proper procedure has been followed while holding enquiry against the delinquent official and whether principle of natural justice have been pressed into service while awarding punishment?” Both the courts below have rightly observed that after supplying the report of enquiry, the respondent submitted his representation, regarding which comments of the Superintending Engineer, Amritsar were called. As per the said comments, the respondent was found guilty. The appellants failed to point out any such procedure under the Punishment and Appeal Rules where after completion of enquiry and supplying the enquiry report to the delinquent, comments over the representation could be called for from some other authority. In the present case, not only the comments were called but the Superintending Engineer observed him to be guilty on the basis of which the order of penalty was passed against him. It was the Punishing Authority who could proceed against the delinquent official and not the Superintending Engineer. Records do not reveal if the copy of the comments of the Superintending Engineer were ever supplied to the delinquent official. Even the comments of the Superintending Engineer were called after the respondents submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The order further reveals that the same was passed on the approval of the Government which procedure is also not known to the Punishment and R.S.A. No. 1884 of 2009 -2- *** Appeals Rules. Further more, copy of the charge sheet (Ex.PX) was issued by the Executive Officer and he was held guilty by the Superintending Engineer, whereas, the Punishing Authority is Chief Engineer. As such, no interference could be called for with the consistent findings of fact returned by the two courts below. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the case. Dismissed. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge