IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4664 of 1992. Date of Decision: 30th April, 2009. Constable Lakhwinder Singh Petitioner through None Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. G.S.Atttariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.3.1992 [Annexure P-5] whereby denovo inquiry has been ordered against him. The petitioner is a Constable in the Punjab Police. A charge-sheet was served on him for willful absence from duty for a period of over 215 days. Notwithstanding the absence period, the competent authority – the then Commandant of the Battalion imposed the punishment of 'censure' only. When the case was sent for regularization of the period of absence, the new incumbent in the office of the Commandant, 80th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar took the view that the petitioner has been let off by taking an extra-ordinary lenient view despite commission of a serious misconduct by him which could entail dismissal from service. He accordingly, vide his impugned order dated 27.3.1992, reopened the inquiry and appointed an Inquiry Officer to hold the proceedings on a day to day basis and submit the report. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.5.1992 stayed the inquiry proceedings. The interim order was made absolute while admitting the writ petition. Resultantly, no disciplinary proceedings could be held during the last over 17 years. There is a dilemma as to whether or not the inquiry proceedings should be allowed to be initiated at this stage? Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during this long period of 17 years, the petitioner has again misconducted or failed to improve himself. Similarly, the inadequacy of quantum of punishment, which depends upon one's own perception, appears to be no valid ground to start the denovo inquiry, more so when the inquiry Officer in the first inquiry report had also held the petitioner guilty of the charges. In other words, the findings that the petitioner willfully absented from duty or that no prior sanction of the leave was obtained by him for the period during which he was alleged to have remained hospitalized, were already before the Competent Authority when minor punishment of 'censure' was imposed. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.3.1992 [Annexure P-5] is quashed. April 30, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE