HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18493 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2011 **** Baldev Singh Brar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. GS Bal, Advocate; for the petitioner(s) Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a Junior Engineer in PWD B&R Department, Punjab. Two punishment orders dated 5.5.1995 (Annexure P1) and 6.2.1996 (Annexure P4) were passed against him after holding departmental enquiry. The first order directed recovery of Rs.1,76,361/- from the petitioner besides his compulsory retirement from service. The second order dated 6.2.1996 (Annexure P4) also led to the imposition of punishment of recovery of Rs.41,745.90 paise, compulsory retirement from service and to treat the period of suspension as leave of the kind due. CWP No.18493 of 2005.doc - 2 – (2). The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the first punishment order dated 5.5.1995 (Annexure P1) has been accepted by the Appellate Authority vide an order dated 6/14th January, 2009 (Annexure P14) with a direction that after adjusting the amount to be recovered from him pursuant to the second order dated 6.2.1996, the remaining retiral benefits be released. (3). The petitioner has preferred appeal against the second punishment order dated 6.2.1996 also. It appears that the said appeal was taken up for hearing by the Minister- in-Charge of the Department who passed some order in favour of the petitioner on 24.09.2001 (Annexure P15). (4). The Minister’s order was not given effect by the State Government and one of the reliefs sought in this writ petition is to issue a direction for implementation thereof. (5). So far as the petitioner’ challenge to the first punishment order (Annexure P1) is concerned, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the appeal has been accepted. The petitioner, if already not paid, be granted the resultant monetary benefits on implementation of the Government order dated 6/14th January, 2009 (Annexure P14). (6). As regards the second punishment order, it is debatable that as to who out of the Minister-in-Charge or the CWP No.18493 of 2005.doc - 3 – Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Department, is the competent Appellate Authority under the Rules of Business? Be that as it may, it is imperative upon the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law. (7). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal by passing a speaking order and also keeping in view the observations said to have been made by the Minister-in-charge. The Appellate Authority shall decide the petitioner’s appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the benefits flowing from the order dated 6/14th January, 2009 (Annexure P14) passed by the State Government on acceptance of the petitioner’s appeal against the Minister’s order shall also be granted within the above-stated period. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 11.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge