CWP No.13325 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13325 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.09.2010 **** DS Chauhan . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. DS Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. DPS Randhawa, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 4 Mr. RK Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Singhal, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the report dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P3) which is stated to be based upon a factual enquiry conducted behind his back pursuant to a complaint forwarded by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner constituted under the Central Vigilance Act, 2003. CWP No.13325 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Suffice it to mention here that the afore-stated impugned enquiry report pertains to the alleged manipulation made by the petitioner in respect of his academic/technical qualifications while seeking appointment in Satluj Jal Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. and tried to manipulate his qualification record in NHPC for seeking promotion. (3). The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit opposing the petitioner’s prayer. (4). Having regard to the nature of allegations and counter-allegations as well as the contents of the complaints made against the petitioner, ld. Counsel for the parties were impressed upon to agree for holding a fresh factual enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice to be conducted by a retired Judicial Officer. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel representing respondents No.2 & 3, on instructions, are ad idem to the proposal and have no objection against the appointment of Sh. CB Jaglian, former District & Sessions Judge, who is presently working as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Faridabad to be the Enquiry Officer for holding a fresh factual enquiry in CWP No.13325 of 2009.doc - 3 – respect of the allegations contained in the enquiry report (Annexure P3). (6). In view of the consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- i. The impugned enquiry report dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P3) is hereby set aside on the solitary ground that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner; ii. The allegations contained in the factual report (Annexure P3) be specifically conveyed to the petitioner within a period of one week and the petitioner may submit his reply/explanation thereto, if any, within one week thereafter. The complaints, Statement of Allegations as well as the reply to be submitted by the petitioner, if any, shall then be placed before Sh. CB Jaglian, the Enquiry Officer who shall conduct and conclude the fact-finding enquiry within a period of three months. iii. Both the parties shall fully cooperate with learned Enquiry Officer and provide full assistance as may be required in the matter. CWP No.13325 of 2009.doc - 4 – iv. The Enquiry Officer shall be paid a lumpsum of `30,000/- by the respondent-Corporation as his fee/honorarium; v. The Enquiry Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties; vi. Till the enquiry proceedings are concluded, the petitioner shall be retained at Faridabad to enable him to effectively participate in the enquiry proceedings, however, without prejudice to his legal right to impugn the transfer order, if any, in accordance with law; vii. If the learned Enquiry Officer, being President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad requires any Governmental permission for his appointment as the Enquiry Officer, the Government of Haryana is directed to accord such necessary permission/ sanction to him at the earliest; viii. Needless to say that the Ld. Enquiry Officer shall return his findings uninfluenced of the contents/conclusions of the previous enquiry report (Annexure P3) nor the fact that the said report has been set aside shall have any bearing on the merits of the controversy. The CWP No.13325 of 2009.doc - 5 – Ld. Enquiry Officer shall arrive at his independent and impartial conclusions on appreciation of the material on record to be produced by the parties; ix. Further action will depend upon the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. (7). With these observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.09.2010 vishal shonkar