IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16111 of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.7.2010 Smt. Jeeto Bai ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, who is present in Court, has stated that the inquiry report along with the necessary communication was sent to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab on 26.5.2010 but for some reason the same was not brought to the notice of the Court. Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab states that it was on account of the lapse of the person deputed by the office who failed to bring it to the notice of the arguing counsel. It is to be noticed that Sudager Singh, Law Officer, who has been representing the department to assist the Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, has not been satisfactorily able to explain as to why the fact of sending copy of the C.W.P.No.16111 of 2009 -2- inquiry report, to the Addl.A.G., Punjab was not brought to his notice or for that purpose to the notice of the Court. His conduct does not seem to be that of a responsible officer. The costs amounting to Rs.10,000/- shall be recovered from the pocket of the said Law Officer and a copy of this order shall be placed on his service-book. The petitioner had challenged the order which had been passed in appeal filed against the order of suspension. During the pendency of the appeal, a regular inquiry had been conducted and the petitioner had been found in possession of 17 marlas of land unauthorisedly instead of 5 marlas which was held in the preliminary inquiry. He has assailed the findings of the inquiry separately. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that these are contradictory findings which are totally against the facts on record. I am afraid, in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact which apparently seem to have arisen in the instant case because of conflict of the case of the petitioner and the findings in the inquiry. The writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail her remedy before the competent authority which shall dispose of the matter without being influenced by the fact that the petitioner had taken recourse to the filing of writ petition which has since been dismissed on the aforesaid ground. This will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner and the matter shall be decided independently. C.W.P.No.16111 of 2009 -3- At this stage, Sudager Singh, Law Officer tenders his unconditional apology and prays for mercy. This court after considering the entire facts warns him to be careful in future. 23.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss