C.W.P. No.9707 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9707 of 1993 Date of Decision: 19.01.2010 Lakhmi Chand Sharma, District Manager (under suspension), Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh now with HQs in the office of Regional Manager at Hisar ....Petitioner Versus Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd., and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of suspension, which was issued on 22.05.1992. The order states that regular charge-sheet would be followed separately. The contention of the petitioner was that this was issued on account of personal bias that the 2nd respondent had against the petitioner and on account of his direction to the Managing Director to suspend him. 2. Even apart from a challenge to the suspension order as clouded by mala fides, the contention of the petitioner was that the regular charge-sheet that was alluded to in the office order C.W.P. No.9707 of 1993 -2- dated 22.05.1992 was a mere replication of an incident on the basis of which the reply was elicited from the petitioner and when the Managing Director had already accepted the reply and he had been let off with a stern warning. The respondent was apprised of the same and the charge-sheet was also subsequently withdrawn by the proceedings of the Managing Director on 21.05.1993, when he recorded the fact that the charge-sheet dated 08.09.1992 was the subject of the very same charge issued previously and when it was closed with the stern warning. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the charge-sheet was withdrawn, they had framed a fresh chage of giving bribe and illegal gratification subsequently to which a reply had been given. 4. In my view, issuance of a suspension order itself cannot constitute a punishment and it could be assailed only if it was issued by a person, who was not competent to issue a suspension order or it was in some way affected by mala fides. The allegations of mala fides which are attributed to the act of the 1st respondent, when he was purported to have been guided by the instructions of the 2nd respondent have been countered by a statement of the 2nd respondent himself. The 1st respondent has also given written statement disputing the contentions raised by the respondent. 5. I find from the case file that the Division Bench of this C.W.P. No.9707 of 1993 -3- Hon'ble Court passed an order on 07.02.1994, while admitting the writ petition has stayed the operation of the orders impugned during the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to state the present status of the case. However, having regard to the fact that the impugned order namely the suspension order and the charge- sheet issued on 26.11.1992 and still later an order passed on 07.04.1993 issuing a fresh charge-sheet had all been stayed, no further relief need be granted in this case. 6. The Hon'ble Division Bench had already held that the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh orders regarding the suspension and holding of the departmental enquiry subsequent to the disposal of the criminal case. The ultimate decision that the respondents could take ought to ensue from the status of the criminal case and having regard to the interim order which was granted by the Court and the limited prayer seeking for quashing of suspension order and charge-sheet had all been stayed, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the writ petition merely records the fact that the respondents' action will be guided by the directions already given on 07.02.1994 and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 19, 2010 Pankaj*