IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4898 of 1992. Date of Decision: 30th April, 2009. Kirpal Singh ..Petitioner through Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate 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) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 4898, 6670 and 6965 of 1992 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 4898 of 1992. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 24.1.1992 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga placing him under suspension and directing a departmental inquiry into the charges levelled vide charge-sheet dated 25.9.1991. The petitioner is a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways. He was served with the aforementioned charge-sheet dated 25.9.1991 alleging mis-appropriation. An inquiry was held and pursuant thereto, he was removed from service vide order dated 5.8.1986. The petitioner challenged his removal from service in a civil suit which was decreed in his favour by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.1990, holding that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution read with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services [Punishment and Appeal] Rules. The Civil Court decree has attained finality. Respondent No. 2, however, again placed the petitioner under suspension and directed a fresh inquiry into the same charge- sheet dated 25.9.1991 on the premise that the earlier proceedings were set aside by the Civil Court on a technical ground. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.4.1992 stayed the petitioner's suspension. Thereafter on 12.5.1992 the writ petition was admitted and in addition to the stay of suspension, inquiry proceedings were also stayed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgment of learned Civil Court, a copy of which has been placed on record, I am of the considered view that the previous inquiry proceedings against the petitioner were not set aside on technical ground alone. The Civil Court has also held that besides the inquiry proceedings being in violation of the principles of natural justice, there were other grounds also available to the petitioner to assail the validity/legality of the impugned order. In these circumstances and at this stage, when the proceedings have remained stayed for a period of over 17 years, it would be too iniquitous to permit the respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned suspension order and the charge-sheets are set aside. April 30, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE