CWP No. 11549 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11549 of 2011 Date of decision July 7 , 2011 Jagdev Singh and another ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. M. S. Gill, Advocate and Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners seek the intervention of the Court for initiating an departmental enquriy which was purported to be wrongly concluded by respondent No.4 by dropping the proceedings against respondent Nos.5 to 7. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 to 7 had involved petitioner and members of his family in a false case by planting weapons as though they were illegally in their possession. They were prosecuted but they were discharged of the offences alleged against them by a competent court of jurisdiction. The petitioners had given a complaint to the authorities on the basis of which a departmental action was taken but the disciplinary authority namely the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot found the charges against respondent Nos.5 to 7 as not established and dropped the departmental action. 2. Learned counsel states that the departmental enquiry itself was vitiated by a fundamental flaw of the complainant being not being examined. In my view, the intervention sought through the writ petition is without any legal basis. The petitioner has no locus standi to file CWP No. 11549 of 2011 2 the petition and urge that a departmental action ought to have been proceeded in any particular fashion. The petitioner cannot join issues on the manner of conduct of departmental action by the only fact that he was the complainant. Learned counsel referring to the decision in Sushil Kumar Verms Vs. Union of India 2001(331) JT 537 in support of his contention. The reliance on this judgment is wholly misplaced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding a case of an enquiry conducted by a bank against an employee and the conclusion that was taken on the basis of an enquiry where the complainant had not been examined. The employee against whom disciplinary action had concluded had challenged the proceedings before the Labour Court and the Labour Court found that the charge had not been established, especially in view of the fact that the complainant had not been examined and the charges could not be taken as established. The Labour Court, therefore, took the decision that the departmental action was vitiated. The High Court reversed the decision. In the Civil appeal filed by the employee, the Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings were vitiated by the non-examination of the complainant. What is possible for a Court to decide on the basis of the grievance expressed through an affected party, namely an employee in the departmental proceedings, cannot be used by a third party to the departmental proceedings. A private complainant against a government employee on whose complaint a departmental action is taken cannot treat himself as an aggrieved party to challenge the dropping of the proceedings against an employee. 3. The writ petition, in my view, is without any merit and deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 7, 2011 archana CWP No. 11549 of 2011 3