CWP No.13198 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13198 of 2000 Date of decision : 27-07-2010 Dharam Pal .... Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Petitioner was appointed as a Lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board. In the present petition, it is prayed that order dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P-7) whereby an Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges levelled in the chargesheet served upon the petitioner be quashed as the respondent – Electricity Board cannot pursue the chargesheet (Annexure P-1) in view of the Award given by the Labour Court. Before the prayer made in the writ petition is considered, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts. Respondent No.1 - Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') issued an advertisement for appointment of Lineman. Petitioner applied thereto and was selected and appointed as such by the Board. He joined the services on 10.08.1984. On 8.08.1986, a CWP No.13198 of 2000 -2- chargesheet was served upon the petitioner where it was stated that petitioner had furnished a bogus experience certificate at the time of selection. Petitioner submitted reply to the chargesheet. Petitioner was held guilty of charge and his services were terminated on 10.12.1987. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Amritsar. The Presiding Officer held the order of termination of the services of the petitioner to be illegal and vide order at Annexure P-4 he was ordered to be reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The Award of the Labour Court was challenged in a writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court on 14.08.1995 passed the following order:- "Present:- Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate. ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner states that three months' salary in advance shall be paid to respondent – workman within a week from today, and the impugned order be quashed to enable the petitioner to show that termination of the services of the petitioner and the enquiry held were valid as the findings returned by the Tribunal are vague and self contradictory. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed. Petitioner undertakes to lead its entire evidence on the date of hearing and the respondent-workman will also lead his entire evidence on one date of hearing. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter afresh within three months from 1.9.1995. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on CWP No.13198 of 2000 -3- 21.8.1995. A copy of this order be supplied dasti. Sd/- M.S.Liberhan, Judge, Sd/- J.L.Gupta, 14.8.1995 Judge." On remand, Labour Court again passed the Award on 28.11.1995 and held termination of the petitioner to be bad in the eyes of law. The respondent Board reinstated the petitioner in service on 16.07.1996 in compliance of Award of the Labour Court. Two years thereafter vide Annexure P-7 again a chargesheet was served on the same ground that the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner was bogus and Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the present writ petition, Annexure P-7 has been challanged. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.2000 ordered that enquiry proceedings pursuant to the chargesheet dated August 08, 1986 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed. Nobody has caused appearance for the Board. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the appointment, petitioner is continuing in service of the Board since August 1984. The Labour Court held the termination of the petitioner to be bad and reinstated him in service with continuity of service and full back wages. Petitioner is performing his duties for the last 16 years. Counsel for the petitioner is also not able to state as to whether during last 16 years, petitioner has been promoted or not. This Court is of the view that by serving the Board, petitioner has gained sufficient experience. It is not on record as to whether any CWP No.13198 of 2000 -4- criminal action was initiated against the petitioner or not. Since the petitioner has been reinstated into service in compliance of the Award of the Labour Court (Annexure P-4), it is too late in the day to persist with the chargesheet. Hence, the present writ petition is accepted. Chargesheet (Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings are quashed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 27-07-2010 JUDGE manju