CWP No.18668 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18668 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). In this petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the official respondents to take suitable action against respondent No.4 for demanding illegal gratification on monthly basis from him and subjecting him to harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been serving the Transport Department for number of years and has unblemished record. He has been working honestly and has integrity above board. However, he was under pressure by respondent No.4 for paying to him monthly amount as bribe. On his refusal, he was implicated in a false case by respondent No.4, who is an Inspector, and had to face departmental proceedings. He was, however, absolved by the Inquiry Officer vide his report, Annexure P-6 and Director, State Transport, agreeing with the said report, exonerated the petitioner vide order, Annexure P-7. However, in view of the fact that respondent No.4 is habitual of demanding some amount as bribe from conductors, action needs to be taken against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given CWP No.18668 of 2011 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had embezzled Rs.24/- by not issuing tickets to two passengers and thus, caused loss to government exchequer. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. A detailed inquiry followed thereafter. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges against the petitioner were not proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings and exonerated the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, alleged that he had become victim of highhandedness of respondent No.4 who was habitual of demanding bribe from him on monthly basis. The petitioner alleges that disciplinary proceedings against him had adversely effected his family. The petitioner also appears to have submitted a representation, Annexure P-8, for suitable action against respondent No.4. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no interference in writ jurisdiction of this court is called for as stand of the petitioner has already been vindicated, he having been exonerated by the concerned authority. No cause of action, thus, survives. The petition is, thus, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation. Respondent No.1 may look into the same and take appropriate decision expeditiously. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 3.10.2011 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No