C.M. NO.15178 OF 2010 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16340 OF 1991 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 25,2011 Rattan Lal Arora .....Petitioner VERSUS Central Bank of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Application is for fixing some early actual date of hearing. With the consent of parties, the main case is taken up for hearing. The petitioner was employee of the Central Bank of India and has filed this writ petition to quash the enquiry, which has been initiated against him and for a direction not to take any action on the basis of illegal enquiry report. The petitioner, who has joined the service of the Bank in C.M. NO.15178 OF 2010 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16340 OF 1991 :{ 2 }: the year 1969, was accused of some allegation, leading to registration of a criminal case against him in the year 1978. The petitioner was charge sheeted and accordingly was placed under suspension. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the petitioner on 15.7.1983. The State filed an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed on 27.5.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service that too after he had filed a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed. The Bank thereafter had initiated an enquiry against the petitioner in the year 1990 and on that basis, he has come to this Court to challenge the enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay, besides the fact that the petitioner stood acquitted for the same very allegation by the Trial Court. At the outset, counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to a judgement dated 12.10.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8983 of 1991 (Ashok Kumar Vs. The Central Bank of India & Others). Ashok Kumar was co-accused of the petitioner, who was prosecuted alongwith the petitioner for the criminal charges and had earned an acquittal. Copy of the judgement in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) has been placed before this Court. Primarily, this Court had interfered in this case on account of delay in initiating the enquiry. The submissions made on behalf of the Bank for delayed initiation of the enquiry have been considered and negated. On this count, the issue raised in the present writ petition appears to be squarely covered by the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). I am informed that L.P.A. No.246 of 2007 has also C.M. NO.15178 OF 2010 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16340 OF 1991 :{ 3 }: been dismissed on 20.12.2007. In view of this fact, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms. January 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE