IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.871 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2011 Harjit Kaur -----Appellant. Vs. State of Punjab & others -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. Whether the reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against initiation of inquiry against the appellant. 2. Case of the appellant is that an inquiry was held against her on the allegation of negligence in safeguarding the financial interest of the Panchayat, resulting in loss on account of unauthorized cutting of trees. According to the petitioner, vide report dated 16.10.2009 submitted by the District Development L.P.A. No.871 of 2011 and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, the petitioner was exonerated, which order was accepted by the, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab vide letter dated 13.11.2009. Thereafter, another inquiry report dated 6.4.2010 was submitted against the petitioner by the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayat which was set aside by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 30.8.2010, Annexure P-6. Inspite of the said order, notice dated 7.4.2011 has been issued to the petitioner initiating inquiry again, which was arbitrary and unfair in view of decision of the Financial Commissioner in order dated 30.8.2010. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the earlier inquiry being merely preliminary one, there was no bar to regular inquiry being conducted. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier inquiry was a proper inquiry and not merely a preliminary inquiry. 6. Even if it is assumed that the earlier inquiry was not a preliminary inquiry, as submitted by learned counsel, the appellant has alternative remedy to raise such a plea in reply to the impugned notice Annexure P-7 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development). No interference is, thus, called for at this stage. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner takes such a plea in response to the impugned notice, 2 L.P.A. No.871 of 2011 the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) may look into the same before taking a final decision. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 17 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3