CWP NO.4685 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 25.3.2009 Brij Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.DS Patwalia, , Advocate for the petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. With the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner while serving as Mill Wright Instructor was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.5.1995 vide order dated 19.5.1995, on his involvement in criminal case. Later the petitioner was convicted under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Special Judge, Ropar. On the basis of his conviction, he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure P-3). An appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction before the High Court failed in terms of the judgment dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P-5) and Special Leave Petition filed before Hon'ble CWP NO.4685 OF 2009 2 Supreme Court also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner has filed this petition seeking two reliefs. The first prayer is for setting aside the order dismissing the petitioner from service, primarily on the ground that the petitioner was to retire on 30.9.2001 i.e. two days after the date of his dismissal and his entire period of 31 years of service has been washed away by the dismissal order. The second prayer is that his period of suspension right from 11.5.1995 till the date of his dismissal has not been decided by the respondents. In so far as the challenge to the dismissal order is concerned, there is no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner was dismissed on account of his conviction in a corruption case. The conviction has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is absolutely no ground to interfere in the order of dismissal and this relief is rejected. In so far as the second relief is concerned, the respondents are required to take decision regarding the period the petitioner remained under suspension. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision regarding the period of suspension of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served on the competent authority and pass consequential order which will be communicated to the petitioner. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.3.2009 MFK