Civil Writ Petition No. 8824 of 2010 ***** Azad Singh versus State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** While issuing notice of motion on 13.05.2010, the Court had observed as under:- “ The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Excise and Taxation commissioner Haryana has asked the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Commissioner to take action on the basis of letter dated 28.11.2006. It has been pointed out that this letter has been quashed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 11.4.2008 in CWP No. 9542 of 2007. This fact is established from the judgment placed on record as Annexure P-7. The aforesaid order dated 25.2.2009 is in gross violation of the direction issued by this Court and thus is contemptuous in nature. Notice to respondent No. 2 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.” Subsequently, Mr. Anurag Rastogi, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana came present before the Court and states that at the relevant time Mr. A.K. Singh, IAS was working as Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Accordingly, Mr. A.K. Singh was Civil Writ Petition No. 8824 of 2010 -2- directed to be present before the Court and was also given liberty to file reply to the notice. Today, Mr. A.K. Singh, Excise and Taxation Commissioner has come present. He has also filed response by way of affidavit. He has explained the position in para 5 of the the reply, which reads as under:- “ That the order dated 24.9.2008 of this Hon'ble Court was received on 21.10.2008 in the office of the deponent. The mattere was ultimately placed before the then Addl. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (looking after the work of administration) on 13.2.2009, who, instead of placing the file before the deponent, had returned the file to the branch and ultimately a letter dated 25.2.2009 was issued from the office of the respondent No. 2 (deponent), wherein the respondent No. 3 (Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner , Sonepat) was asked to take action in this matter in the light of an earlier letter dated 28.11.2006 of the Head Officer. Here it is stated that letter dated 28.11.2006 was issued to bring all the similarly situated persons at one platform as in some of the districts the benefit of notional pay fixation was given by the Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioners whereas in others it was not. It is further stated that though, the instructions contained in letter dated 28.11.2006 of this office, did not find favour of this Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 11.4.2008 passed in CWP No. 9542 of 2007, titled as Civil Writ Petition No. 8824 of 2010 -3- Suresh Chand Sharma Vs. State, and an order dated 26.4.2007 of the Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner Jind vide which benefit of notion pay fixation was withdrawn in view of the instructions dated 28.11.2006, was quashed. However, the department decided to go in appeal against the order dated 11.4.2008 of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to allow SLP of the department and convert it into civil appeal bearing No. 5203 of 2009. Here it is respectfully stated that the order dated 11.4.2008 of this Hon'ble Court could not be implemented due to the circumstances stated hereinabove and not due to any deliberate or willful disobedience on the part of the deponent (the then respondent No. 2) as the matter was never placed before the deponent and hence a speaking order could not be passed in time.” Though the reply as such may give an indication that directions were issued to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner fully knowing that the letter had been quashed, but Mr. A.K. Singh present in person explains that this reply is prepared at the stage which is post show cause notice and is only meant to explain the position as such. He, however, tender his unconditional apology for what has happened and attributes it primarily to the reason that the letter/file had not been put up before him when directions were issued. This explanation offered by A.K. Singh is accepted. Civil Writ Petition No. 8824 of 2010 -4- Otherwise, it is pointed out that the relief of notional fixation of pay has been allowed in the case of the petitioner subject to the decision in the SLP which the respondent has filed. Mr. A.K. Singh shall stand discharged. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed as having become infructuous. July 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE