CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17232 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula .....Petitioner VERSUS Sh.S.B.Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the Caveator. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Housing Board, Haryana, has challenged the order passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Housing Department, Chandigarh, allowing the revision filed by respondent No.1, setting-aside the order of his dismissal. Respondent No.1 was inflicted a punishment of dismissal from service and a recovery of financial loss allegedly caused to the Housing Board to the tune of `4,09,27,673-23Ps. As per the Board, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17232 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: this order of punishment was passed after following due procedure and after holding proper enquiry. It is stated that the Appellate Authority i.e. Chairman of the Housing Board had upheld the order of punishment, against which respondent No.1 had filed a revision before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, after considering all aspects of the case and examining the entire matter, had passed a detailed and well reasoned order setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. The effect thereof is as follows:- “i) Suspension period from 3.7.1995 to 13.3.2003 stands regularized with consequential benefits. ii) Dismissal period from 13.3.2003 to date of superannuation i.e. 31.1.2008 stands regularized and entire wages for this period shall be paid although he has not worked on the post. iii) The recovery of Rs.4,20,12,463 has been set-aside.” The impugned orders are being assailed mainly on the ground that although the appeal has already been decided by Annexure P-3 but despite the fact that a revision was preferred, the orders have been passed by the respondent No.2 as Appellate Authority.” Being aggrieved against this, the Board has filed the present writ petition to impugn this order. In fact, this case has a long drawn history. Respondent No.1 was given current duty charge as X-en in the Housing Board and was entrusted for the job of constructing 600 number four storeyed flats in Sector 14, Panchkula in the year 1993. Two years thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 3.7.1995 and was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17232 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: served with five charge sheets dated between 16.5.1996 to 25.9.1996. Enquiry Officer held respondent No.1 guilty of the charges on 30.7.1999 and thereafter the petitioner was served a show cause notice on 28.6.2000. After three years on 13.3.2003, punishing authority dismissed respondent No.1 from service. The Appellate Authority directed that the delinquent be taken back in service and also ordered that recovery be deferred and should not be made till final decision of the writ petition filed by one Sh.D.P.Gupta. The Board, however, directed the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order vide its resolution dated 14.9.2005. Even this Court had directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh. In the meantime, respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2008. The revisional authority has thereafter passed the impugned order, directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. I have perused the impugned order, Annexure P-1. Each and every aspect of the case has been considered in detail and so also the facts involved in this case. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that action in this case was taken by the petitioner basically as per the direction given to him by the Chief Engineer. Rather, it is noticed that as a result of the actions taken by the Chief Engineer and respondent No.1, the Board has earned a net profit of `8.50 crores in respect of the same very project, for which respondent No.1 was served five charge sheets. The technical opinion, which was relied upon, was found to have been considered by the Vigilance Department and it did not find anything against respondent No.1 in respect of the technical CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17232 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: report given by one Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. The revision authority accordingly found that respondent No.1 was made to suffer a lot for no fault on his part and the order which was passed in his favour on 20.12.2003, directing his reinstatement was also not given effect to. The revisional authority has noticed that respondent No.1 had been made to suffer due to personal malice, vendetta and on account of gross violation of established norms and procedure. It is also observed that the enquiry and the report is by an officer is who prejudiced and biased and this enquiry was no enquiry in the eyes of law. Strong adverse observations are made against the petitioner- Board in appointing Sh.V.P.Gupta, the then Superintending Engineer to enquire into the matter, who was not found impartial or objective. Nothing could be pointed out before me, which would call for any interference in well reasoned and well considered order. The petitioner-Board should consider itself fortune that so far respondent No.1 has not taken action against the Board for established act of malafides on the part of the officials in dealing with the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE