Civil Writ Petition No. 22129 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 22129 of 2011 Date of decision : 29.11.2011 Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order Annexure P-3 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby petitioner has been warned to be careful in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of fact that explanation furnished by the petitioner was found to be satisfactory there was no ground to state in the order to warn the petitioner to be careful in future. Thus, said order deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that petitioner was posted as Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kauhrian. A charge-sheet dated 09.06.2010 was served on him wherein it was alleged that he did not show interest in the targets to be achieved in the Schemes under the National Programs. This result in the concerned PHC being graded as D category. Despite direction given to him by Civil Surgeon, Sangrur vide his letter No. E/8/540 dated 12.12.2008, he did not show any interest in improving his work. Another Civil Writ Petition No. 22129 of 2011 2 charge against the petitioner is that on checking by Civil Surgeon, he had not been found to be present in the headquarter. This apart, basic amenities such as water, water cooler etc. were not available at PHC Kauhrian despite sanction of `1.00 lac in the annual maintenance grant. According to charges, neither the petitioner was able to achieve the targets nor succeeded in maintaining proper condition in the Primary Health Centre, Kauhrian. Verbal complaints were also received against him. After charge-sheet under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 was issued to him, he furnished his explanation. After considering the same, charges against the petitioner were dropped. However, he was asked to be careful in future. On a query being put to learned counsel whether said observation in the impugned order amounts to any penalty, the answer is in negative. A perusal of the order shows that petitioner has only been asked to be careful in future. I am of the considered view that the administrative authority is fully within its rights to make such an observation in the impugned order and same is not a penalty as envisaged by the Rules. In view of above, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. November 29, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE