IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13057 of 1989 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Bhupinder Singh Gill and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. T.S. Gujral, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing an F.I.R. No. 396/72, dated 18.12.1972, under Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (P-1) and charge sheets dated 1.7.1988 (P-3 & P-4) and consequential proceedings thereof. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioners were working as Junior Engineer in the respondent department. In the year C.W.P. No. 13057 of 1989 1971-72 they were posted at National Highway Sub Division No. 2, Amritsar, in the Public Works Department of the State of Punjab. On 18.12.1972, the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab got registered an FIR No. 396/72 at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, on the allegation that certain embezzlements in the department were detected. However, the petitioners were not named in the said FIR (P-1). In the year 1971 the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, also appointed Shri B.S. Malhotra, Superintending Engineer, as a Technical Officer to investigate into the matter, who submitted his report on 5.8.1974 (P-5), indicting various officers and officials of the PWD (B&R) Circle, Amritsar, namely, Sarvshri K.K. Sharda, P.S. Sokhi, Superintending Engineer, V.K. Jain, Executive Engineer, Subhash Malhotra, R.C. Single, Kuldip Singh, Assistant Engineers, S.P. Dhawan and Roshan Lal as well as the present petitioners. After a lapse of 14 years, on 1.7.1988, charge sheets were issued to the petitioners and others. Copies of the charge sheets issued to the petitioners have been placed on record (P-3 & P-4). On 10.9.1988 and 4.3.1989, the petitioners submitted their replies to the charge sheets (P-6 & P-7). On 14.9.1988, the Government appointed the Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Punjab, Chandigarh, to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioners and others. On 15.9.1989, the Inquiry Officer issued notices to the petitioners directing them and others to appear before him on 3.10.1989. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the aforementioned charge sheets and initiation of regular 2 C.W.P. No. 13057 of 1989 departmental inquiry at such a belated stage i.e. after waiting for 14 years. Mr. T.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has submitted that the issue raised in the instant petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sharma v. State of Punjab and another (C.W.P. No. 12852 of 1989, decided on 28.11.1991, wherein same FIR No. 396/72, dated 18.12.1972 and similar charge sheet dated 1.7.1988 were subject matter of consideration. This Court after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and another, 1990(2) SLR 798, allowed the aforementioned writ petition and quashed the charge sheet dated 1.7.1988 and all consequential departmental proceedings initiated against Shri Roshan Lal Sharma. Learned counsel has argued that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Roshan Lal Sharma’s case (supra). He has also drawn my attention to the order dated 27.3.1990 and subsequent admission order dated 2.5.1990, whereby the instant petition was ordered to be heard alongwith C.W.P. No. 12852 of 1989 (supra). Somehow the instant petition could not be decided with the said petition. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned State counsel could not successfully controvert the aforementioned factual position. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 3 C.W.P. No. 13057 of 1989 perusing the paper book with their able assistance, I am of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Roshan Lal Shrama (supra) because facts of both the cases are same. The observations made by this Court in Roshan Lal Sharma’s case (supra) reads thus:- “ After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the dicta in Bani Singh’s case (supra) fully supports the petitioner and the departmental enquiry set up against him must be quashed. The facts narrated above clearly show that the incident is of the year 1972 and the department had the report of the preliminary enquiry as back as in July, 1974. There appears to be no reason and none has been put in the return filed by the respondents which did not permit the department to issue the charge-sheet upto July, 1988. This delay of 14 years has remained completely unexplained. The return filed does not even show an attempt to explain this delay. There again had been a year’s delay in further proceedings after the petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet. It appears quite unreasonable to think that a period of about 14 years was required to issue the charge-sheet. I, therefore, think, as in Bani Singh’s case (supra), it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to proceed at this stage. The 4 C.W.P. No. 13057 of 1989 delay has already deprived the petitioner of his legitimate right to earn promotions. Since he is now due to retire at the end of the year 1988, and that he had a spotless career all through after the year 1974, I feel that it will be unjust to allow the enquiry to proceed any further. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition and quash the charge-sheet dated 1.7.1988, and, all consequential departmental proceedings on that charge-sheet against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.” By applying the same reasoning to the facts of the instant petition, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case Roshan Lal Sharma’s case (supra). Impugned charge sheets dated 1.7.1988 (P-3 & P-4) and consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners are hereby quashed. (M.M. KUMAR) April 29, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5