IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12800 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 21.08.2009 Balbir Singh Ghuman .... PETITIONER Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure P-34), whereby he was re-instated in service with immediate effect, with a recordable warning to be careful in future in performance of his duties, and his conduct was ordered to be watched by Executive Engineer (Electrical). The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as leave of kind due and duty period for all intends and purposes. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.2.2009 (Annexure P-43), whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through CWP No. 12800 of 2009 -2- the aforesaid impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the instant case, without holding an enquiry as per law against the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, the same is not sustainable, as it carries penal consequences. He submits that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been deprived of his earned leave and the said order could not have been passed. He further submits that the impugned orders passed by punishment as well as the Punishing Authority are liable to be quashed, as the same have been passed illegally and in a malafide manner, without taking into consideration the material available on the record of the enquiry file. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any force in the same. A charge sheet was duly issued to the petitioner. In view of the initiation of the departmental proceedings, he was suspended and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. It appears that the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the material as well as the enquiry report, re-instated the petitioner in service with a recordable warning to be careful in future in performance of his duties. The suspension period has been ordered to be treated as leave of kind due and duty period for all intends and purposes. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the petitioner, has upheld the said order. Keeping in view the nature of punishment and the allegations against the petitioner as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to CWP No. 12800 of 2009 -3- interfere in the impugned orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. August 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE