C.W.P. No.3472 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3472 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:30.03.2010 Gurcharan Dass Batish ........Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman at Patiala and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G, Punjab for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of an order dated 17.02.2010 suspending the petitioner from the services of Electricity Board. The order of suspension merely says that it was under the directions of the Hon'ble Administrative Member PSEB's office dated 17.02.2010. The petitioner's contention is that any intra- departmental communication to which he was not a party cannot be a basis for suspension. According to him, suspension itself cannot be a punishment and it does not spell out the reasons as to why the suspension order was issued. 2. At the asking of the Court, Sh. Sharma took notice on C.W.P. No.3472 of 2010 (O&M) -2- behalf of the respondents and today, he has filed the reply on behalf of the respondents by way of an affidavit of Engineer Surat Singh, Senior Executive Engineer. In para 5 of the reply, he states that a written complaint was received from the 5th respondent on 16.02.2010 and that the petitioner had used unparliamentary language and also threatened him. The contention is that the 5th respondent recorded the filthy language used against him and the translated copy of the complaint has also been annexed along with the reply. 3. The cases would require to be considered and allowed for a limited prayer sought for that there could not have been a suspension order simpliciter giving no clue to the petitioner as to why it has been passed and an explanation which comes through a reply is not what is found in the impugned notice itself. It is too well established a proposition that an order that is challenged has to be supported by reasons in the very same order and it cannot be buttressed through pleadings, as held by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S. Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC. . Reserving the liberty to the respondent to take such action as it is legally feasible on the basis of a complaint, the order of suspension already passed is quashed. The reply refers to the fact that the charge-sheet has been issued while the petitioner states that he has not received any charge-sheet so far. Any action that is taken by the respondents shall be independent of the order, which is passed now and the parties shall have full right to protect their respective rights in the manner known to law. C.W.P. No.3472 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 4. The writ petition is allowed` on the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 30, 2010 Pankaj*