IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1056 of 1994 Date of Decision : March 22, 2010. Avtar Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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 petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 26.11.1993 (Annexure P-14) as well as the charge-sheet dated 13.1.1994 (Annnexure P-15). The petitioners were appointed as Junior Translators Grade-I and Grade-II respectively in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Chandigarh. They were required to pass some departmental test as per the terms and conditions of their appointment letters which they are said to have passed. However, they have been served with a charge-sheet, inter- alia, alleging that the then Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha relaxed the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 40% and thus, favoured the C.W.P.No .1056 of 1994 2 petitioners in passing the test. The petitioners were placed under suspension also on this very count. More than 16 years have passed after filing of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that as against the salary of Rs.20,760/- to which the petitioners are entitled to, they were being paid the subsistence allowance of Rs.3916/- only. He further points out that the enquiry proceedings have now been completed but passing of the final order has been stayed by this Court. Their subsistence allowance has also not been revised even when the pay scales of the Punjab Government employees have been revised twice. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. It appears that with the passage of time, the interim order passed by this Court is operating to the dis-advantage of the petitioners in as much as neither the respondents have been able to finalize the enquiry proceedings nor they are paying revised subsistence allowance to the petitioners. In these circumstances, especially when the enquiry proceedings have already been completed, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In case the petitioners have not been offered an opportunity to lead their defence, the Enquiry Officer is directed to grant atleast two opportunities to each of the petitioners to lead their defence evidence, if any; C.W.P.No .1056 of 1994 3 (ii) The Enquiry Officer is directed to submit his report within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order; (iii) The Disciplinary Authority shall thereafter take a final decision after observing the principles of natural justice, within a period of two months from the date the enquiry report is submitted by the Enquiry Officer; (iv) The Disciplinary Authority shall specifically deal with the question as to how the petitioners were instrumental in getting the marks relaxed from 50% to 40% granted by then Speaker of Vidhan Sabha and how does it tantamount to a misconduct on their part? (v) If the petitioners are aggrieved at the order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, liberty is granted to them to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. (vi) If the Disciplinary Authority exonerate the petitioners, the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay, revision of pay, regularization of suspension period etc., shall be granted to them within a period of three months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. March 22, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE