CWP No.2024 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2024 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.02.2010 **** Lakhwinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and Others . . . . . Respondents **** 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: Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, learned DAG Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. (2). Having regard to the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file any counter-reply at this stage. (3). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 29.01.2009/17.02.2009 (Annexure P11), whereby, CWP No.2024 of 2010.doc - 2 – his claim for resuming duties as a Constable, has been turned down. (4). It appears that the petitioner was selected as Constable in the Punjab Police and even after completion of all the formalities, he was not permitted to resume duties as he was found to have been involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No.311 dated 19.11.2006, at Police Station City Faridkot, under Sections 148/452/323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC (5). The petitioner having earned acquittal on merit in that case, represented to the respondents to allow him to join his duties. However, no response was received. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of CWP No.18304 of 2008 which was disposed of on 22.10.2008 with a direction to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same “in accordance with law” within a period of six months. (6). Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P11) has been passed, which suffice it to observe, is totally cryptic and CWP No.2024 of 2010.doc - 3 – bordering the contempt as it does not assign any reason whatsoever for rejection of the petitioner’s claim. (7). It was imperative upon the authority to disclose its mind while considering the representation made by the petitioner. The casual approach in such like matters is highly deprecated. The order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P11) is, therefore, quashed and the Director General of Police is directed to reconsider the whole matter and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.02.2010 vishal shonkar