C.W.P. No.4503 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4503 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.01.2010 Prem Chand S/o Sh. Munshi Ram ....Petitioner Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. 2. C.W.P. No.11145 of 2003 (O&M) Narinder Kumar Sawhney S/o Sh. Munshi Ram ....Petitioner Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The above two writ petitions address the answer to C.W.P. No.4503 of 2003 (O&M) -2- similar problem of the petitioners having been terminated from service without holding an enquiry. It is agreed by both counsel that the security of service available to the petitioners in the 1st respondent-establishment is similar to the service condition afforded under Article 311 of the Constitution. The justification for the action of the respondent for not holding an enquiry was placed on the exception provided under Article 311(2) where it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry, it would still be competent for the employer to terminate the service on the grounds of public interest. Such a plea from the same establishment of yet another employee was examined by this Court in Munshi Ram Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited and another in C.W.P. No.19211 of 2001 dated 22.10.2008 and at the time when the order was passed, the learned Judge had directed that it would be open for the employer to constitute a fresh enquiry and then take action in accordance with law. The learned Judge had also observed that the employee would not be entitled to salary during the period when they were facing suspension and when they held no service, on the reinstatement to the service by virtue of the order. As to the nature of treatment to be made to the period of suspension, the learned Judge had observed that the competent authority would pass appropriate orders relating to the same at the time of passing of fresh orders after enquiry. This observation was modified by C.W.P. No.4503 of 2003 (O&M) -3- Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No.124 of 1990 when on the concurrence of both parties, it was held that the period during which the employee was kept out of service and when he was to be reinstated by virtue of the order of the High Court, he should be entitled to the subsistence allowance, since in the eye of law, he could not be treated to be dismissed from service. 2. The decision that has been rendered by this Court in the case referred above with the modification as made by the Division Bench shall prevail in the above two cases also. The impugned orders of dismissal are quashed and the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement. It will be competent for the respondent to take appropriate action after constituting an enquiry and affording to the petitioners right to defend themselves. For the period when the petitioners have been out of service and when they are reinstated by virtue of this order, they shall be entitled to subsistence allowance in the manner directed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 3. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms with the liberty to the respondent to hold the enquiry as aforesaid. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 21, 2010 Pankaj* C.W.P. No.4503 of 2003 (O&M) -4-