IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5921 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 01, 2010. Pal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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, while serving as Inspector Grade-I in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Punjab, was subjected to a joint enquiry held against several officers and Inspectors of the department for causing loss to the State exchequer. While some of them have been exonerated, the others including the petitioner have been found guilty of causing loss to the State exchequer and a punishment of recovery of Rs.5,47,672.85 has been imposed upon him by respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P-3). It may be noticed here that had there been a separate enquiry against the petitioner, the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department would have been the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. Since his seniors were also involved and charges were identical, a joint enquiry had to be held and the order of punishment has C.W.P.No .5921 of 2010 2 also been passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Punjab. As the punishment order has been passed by a higher authority, it has deprived the petitioner of his right to an appeal under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, against the impugned order. On a query, Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that as per the Rules of Business of the State of Punjab, the Minister-in-Charge is the Competent Authority to hear the appeal if preferred by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to seek his alternative remedy of departmental appeal before the Competent Authority. It is directed that if the petitioner submits an appeal against the order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, the Competent Authority shall decide the same on merits by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him within a period of three months from the date of receiving such an appeal. The respondents are further directed to consider the petitioner's claim for release of his pensionary benefits as per Rules. Disposed of. Dasti. April 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE