C.W.P No. 12258 of 2005 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 12258 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : August 20, 2010 Khazan Singh and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Punjab and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioners had challenged the inquiry proceedings as well as the consequent punishment orders passed against them. On 21.7.2010, the following order was passed :- “ In this writ petition, challenging the inquiry report, as also the order of recovery, the primary contention of counsel for the petitioners is that over a period of approximately 14 months, the petitioners had admittedly C.W.P No. 12258 of 2005 (O&M) ::2:: attended 14-15 hearings at Chandigarh, Ludhiana and Chandigarh. He further states that no information was given to the petitioners with regard to the date of 28.11.2000. In the written statement, no specific stand has been taken to this averment. However, in the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has recorded that the petitioners had refused to sign the order dated 22.11.2000. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to peruse the inquiry report to see if any order was passed on 22.11.2000. Counsel for the respondents prays for two weeks' time to produce the record of the inquiry. Adjourned to 5.8.2010. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary.” Thereafter, the learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab produced the inquiry record before this Court on 5.8.2010. A perusal thereof reveals that though the Inquiry Officer had recorded that the petitioners had refused to sign the order on 22.11.2000, yet a perusal of that order had revealed that on that very date earlier the Inquiry Officer had noticed that the Presenting Officer had come to the Court but had slipped away and in fact, the Inquiry Officer had expressed displeasure on this conduct of the Presenting Officer. Thus, even though it may not be possible to conclusively hold that the petitioners were not informed of the next date viz 28.11.2000 yet it is clear that their absence on 28.11.2000 cannot be C.W.P No. 12258 of 2005 (O&M) ::3:: termed to be such as would dis-entitle them from pressing for fair hearing. A perusal of the inquiry file also reveals that the petitioners had been present on all previous dates and on many such occasions, the matter had to be adjourned because of non-availability of the Presenting Officer. It is also not disputed that on the crucial date one of the petitioners had moved an application before the Inquiry Officer for an adjournment of the case on the ground that he had a judicial appearance scheduled on the same date viz 28.11.2000. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Inquiry Officer should have given at-least one more opportunity to the petitioners to present themselves and in support of their case. To that extent, this Court is constrained to hold that the salutary principle of audi- alterm-partem had not been fully followed in this case. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the order of recovery dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure P-19), the inquiry report dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure P-13), and the order 28.11.2000 (whereby the petitioners were proceeded against exparte) are set aside and the matter is remanded back for further proceedings from that stage. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners would take only two opportunities to lead whatever evidence which they have to lead. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order, the inquiry report and the order dated 28.11.2000 proceeding against the petitioners exparte are set aside. The respondents are directed to take up the inquiry proceedings from the stage where they were on 28.11.2000 as undertaken by counsel for the petitioners. Two opportunities would be C.W.P No. 12258 of 2005 (O&M) ::4:: granted to the petitioners for leading their evidence. Considering the fact that the allegations pertain to the year 1994, it would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are concluded expeditiously. Any amount which may have been recovered from the petitioners would obviously be subject to the fresh orders which may be passed, in accordance with law. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 20, 2010. JUDGE `kk'