Crl. OCP No. 9 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. OCP No. 9 of 2008 Date of decision: January 22, 2009 Court on its own motion ...Petitioner Versus G.S. Cheema ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent. K.S.GAREWAL, J. A fact finding inquiry was ordered by the Chief Secretary (Punjab) on January 23, 2007 in the matter of appointment of Dr. Pardeep Kapil as Professor Charak Darshan (an Ayurvedic discipline) because of certain controversies surrounding this and other appointments recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission in 2002. The inquiry was conducted by Shri. G.S. Cheema, who at the relevant time was Chairman of Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training. The inquiry report is dated April 17, 2007. Unfortunately, the contents of the report became public even though it was to be only an in-house fact finding inquiry which the Government often conducts to determine the lapses of its officers. When the report became public, many months later, certain references to legal proceedings before this Court also came to light. These references are mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated April 3, Crl. OCP No. 9 of 2008 2 2008 who took a serious view and issued a show cause notice to the respondent for May 16, 2008, as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him. Today Shri G.S. Cheema is present in Court and the case has been heard. The affidavit of Shri G.S. Cheema dated August 13, 2008 is on record and has been perused. Since we are not going to decide the case on merit, but on the basis of the unqualified apology tendered by Shri G.S. Cheema, we do not propose to go into the offending passages of the inquiry report or the contents of the affidavit in defence. Suffice it to say that Shri G.S. Cheema had revised his report on May 8, 2008, which was accepted by the Government, copy of the same is taken on record. Therefore, the earlier report which contained the offending passages stands withdrawn and is treated as non-existent. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent having tendered an unconditional apology for the remarks in the report and having revised his report, deserves to be pardoned. The apology is accepted and the rule is discharged. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE January 22, 2009 (SHAM SUNDER) prem JUDGE Note:- Whether refer to reporter No