CWP No.8584 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8584 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.01.2010 **** Karnail Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab & others . . . . . Respondent **** 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: Pt. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a retired Tehsildar who seeks quashing of the orders dated 25.02.2003 (Annexure P1) and 21.07.2003 (Annexure P2), whereby, punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been awarded to him and the appeal preferred against the said order has also been turned down without assigning any reason. CWP No.8584 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The above-stated penal action has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct that while performing the duties as Assistant Collector, he erroneously ordered correction of Khasra Girdawari (revenue record) in favour of one Amrit Pal Singh. (3). The petitioner’s case is that since the order regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari was passed by him while exercising quasi-judicial power, no disciplinary action can be taken against him, in this regard. (4). On the other hand, learned State counsel urges that even for an act of impropriety committed while exercising quasi-judicial powers, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated, especially when such an action is founded upon extraneous considerations. (5). Be that as it may, the petitioner’s own case is that he had submitted a representation-cum-memorial against the above-stated order of punishment. He further highlights that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order has been apparently decided by the same authority who had imposed the punishment and that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. CWP No.8584 of 2009.doc - 3 – (6). It may be true that the memorial submitted by the petitioner against the order of punishment (Annexure P7) is time barred and is quite belated. However, nothing precludes the competent authority to consider and dispose of the said memorial on merits if the delay were reasonably explained. (7). The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, without expressing any views on the rival contentions, but with a direction to the respondents to put up the petitioner’s memorial before the competent authority, within a period of three month, to enable the competent authority to take appropriate decision on it at the earliest. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 20.01.2010 vishal shonkar