IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13084 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2009 K.C. Duggal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges charge sheet (Annexure P-1) and order dated 20.9.1988 (P-3) appointing an Enquiry Officer to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner and other delinquent officials. 2. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court stayed proceedings till further orders, vide order dated 17.10.1989. On 6.12.1989, while admitting the petition, the Division Bench vacated the ex parte stay order and directed that the respondent State will proceed with the enquiry and pass necessary orders. However, such orders were not to be given effect if the same were adverse to the petitioner till the orders are CWP No. 13084 of 1989 passed by this Court in that behalf. Thereafter an application was filed by the respondent State disclosing that enquiry against the petitioner was finalised and the competent authority proposed to inflict punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments against the delinquent-petitioner besides effecting recovery of loss to the tune of Rs. 8,800/- proportionately to other co-delinquent. On 3.6.1994, the Bench had ordered that any adverse order passed against the petitioner was not to be given effect to for a period of three weeks from the date of delivery of the order to the petitioner and it was left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against any such adverse order that may be passed. 3. In the back drop of the aforesaid factual position the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Vigilance Department was directed to send the latest status vide order dated 18.5.2009. 4. At the hearing today, after examining the record learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had filed a civil suit which was decreed and the decree has been upheld up to this Court. However, against the judgment and decree passed by this Court, Civil Appeal No. 789 of 2008 is still pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Mr. Mahajan further states that in view of the aforesaid the instant petition has been rendered infructuous as no adjudication would be necessary. 5. Ordered accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) May 20, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2