IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 2746 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 20.02.2009 Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. G. S. Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was a depot holder at Kaithal. His depot license has been cancelled by respondent No.2 vide an order dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure P-19). The petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kaithal vide order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure P-20). These orders have been passed pursuant to an inquiry concluded against the petitioner vide inquiry report dated 06.05.2008 (Annexure P-15). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Besides other contentions, the petitioner took the following two specific pleas before the authorities below and has reiterated the same: Firstly, it is urged that the inquiry proceedings were initiated on a complaint made by respondent No.5 who is not a consumer ever registered with the petitioner in Ward No.11. C.W.P NO. 2746 OF 2009 -2- Secondly, the petitioner could not defend himself by producing the records which had been allegedly taken away by respondent No.4-Jogi Ram Inspector. The respondent authorities have repelled both the pleas. As regards the first contention, the Enquiry Officer, as well as, the Disciplinary/Appellate Authorities have relied upon the statements of some other consumers, who are registered with the petitioner's depot. His second contention that Jogi Ram, Inspector has taken away the original record, had also been disbelieved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as the records were taken away by Jogi Ram, Inspector and were not returned to him, he had made a complaint against the said Inspector and pursuant thereto, some departmental inquiry is pending. In this regard, he relies upon the letter dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure P-14) addressed by the Director, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana. It is further alleged that the above mentioned inquiry is still pending. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that since the authorities have drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner for not producing the original records and his version that the original records were actually taken away by Jogi Ram, Inspector, is still stated to be the subject matter of C.W.P NO. 2746 OF 2009 -3- pending inquiry, it would be more appropriate, at this stage, to direct the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kaithal to conclude the pending inquiry, if any, against Jogi Ram Inspector, pursuant to the D.O letter dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure P-14), as early as possible, but not later than two months. In case the petitioner is able to prove in the said inquiry that the original records were actually taken away by Jogi Ram Inspector, in that event, he will be at liberty to represent to respondent No.2 to reconsider the impugned order dated 04.09.2008 and if any such eventuality arises, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of its receipt. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 20, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE