CWP No.18826 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18826 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 **** Anil Kumar ... Petitioner VS. Union of India & 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. YK Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who is the Senior Area Manager in Agrovet Division of the Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) at Chandigarh, is aggrieved by his suspension order dated September 21, 2010 (Annexure P12) which in turn is based upon a written complaint dated 13.09.2010 made by one Dr. Deepak Raj, Sub Divisional Officer, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Haryana alleging that while traveling in a Superfast train from Chandigarh to Lucknow on 12th September, 2010, the petitioner was drunk and he misbehaved with 2 girl passengers, one of whom was the daughter of the CWP No.18826 of 2010.doc - 2 – complainant. The second girl was statedly a doctor going to Bareilly but due to the misbehaviour by the petitioner in an ebriated condition that she had to drop down at Moradabad only. (2). The petitioner has submitted his reply dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P14) against the show cause notice/suspension order mainly disputing the ‘identity’ of the guilty person and claiming himself to be a victim of ‘mistaken identity’. (3). The petitioner accordingly seeks quashing of the suspension order besides a direction to the competent authority to consider his above-stated plea before it proceeds further in the matter. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. (5). Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner was actually traveling in the above-mentioned train on 12.09.2010 in AC-II Class Coach it would be too far- fetched for this court to form a definite opinion that it’s a case of ‘mistaken identity’. No case to interfere with the impugned suspension order, at this stage, is made out. (6). Needless to say that the disciplinary authority shall undoubtedly consider the plea(s) taken by the petitioner in his reply dated 06.10.2010 in CWP No.18826 of 2010.doc - 3 – accordance with law before it proceeds further in the matter. (7). With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. 14.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE