CWP No.17894 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 17894 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16 - 11 - 2009 Gurtej Singh Gill ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.S.Jaidka, Advocate for Mr.Jatin Salwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1 and 3. Mr.Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.S.S.Chatrath, Advocate for Mr.D.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent No.4 is employed as Operation Theater Assistant in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College. In June, 2008, elections to Municipal Council, Faridkot were held. Gurtej Singh Gill was contesting the election from Congress party and in that election he was opposed by Keshav Lal Pappu. Respondent No.4 lodged an FIR in which he stated that Gurtej Singh Gill and others came armed with weapons and attacked him. The cause of grudge was that respondent No.4 was helping Keshav Lal Pappu. Keshav Lal Pappu was stated to be an Akali candidate. CWP No.17894 of 2008 [2] The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued and the State of Punjab, Baba Farid University and Guru Gobind Singh Medical College should be directed to take action against respondent No.4, as he has committed breach of Government instructions dated 6.7.1989 which require that a Government employee should maintain political neutrality of government service in relation to elections. In the present case, an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry respondent No.4 has been absolved. The plea raised by respondent No.4 that he has family relations with Keshav Lal Pappu was accepted. This part of the enquiry is doubted by counsel for the petitioner stating that respondent No.4 has no family relation with Keshav Lal Pappu. Be that as it may, respondent No.4 may have helped Keshav Lal Pappu as a friend or otherwise. There is no allegation that petitioner professed, propagated ideology of any political party or he had canvassed for any political party. If respondent No.4 has helped any candidate in Municipal Council elections, it cannot be construed that he has canvassed for any political party or its ideology. Even otherwise, it was for the Government to take action. This Court in a writ jurisdiction will not sit over the judgment of the Government and perform watch and ward duties, especially when the present writ petition is prompted due to personal enmity which has resulted in registration of the FIR. Hence, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 16, 2009. JUDGE RC