CWP NO. 15582 OF 2007 & 1 CWP NO.2536 OF 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 19.1.2009 1.CWP NO.15582 OF 2007 Satish Kumar Sekkari ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents 2.CWP NO.2536 of 2008 Amarjit ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate & Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for petitioner(s) Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1, 3 & 5 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 15582 of 2007 & 2536 OF 2008 as both the writ petitions involve common facts and questions of law. With the consent of counsel for the parties, both the CWP NO. 15582 OF 2007 & 2 CWP NO.2536 OF 2008 petitions are taken up for final disposal at motion stage. Petitioner-Satish Kumar Sekhari in CWP No.15582 of 2007 was serving as Inspector Grade-I whereas petitioner-Amarjit in CWP No.2536 of 2008 was serving as Inspector Grade II. They were served with charge- sheet dated 21.6.2000 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. After soliciting their replies, regular disciplinary enquiries were conducted against them. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report and found the charges against both the petitioners proved. The disciplinary authority, after obtaining the comments from the petitioners passed the order dated 28.2.2002 (Annexure P-1 in both the petitions) wherein both the petitioners were held guilty of charges against them and the loss caused to the State was ordered to be recovered in the ratio of 60:40. The petitioner-Satish Kumar Sekhari was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,39,738.80 and the petitioner-Amarjit Singh was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.16,93,150.20. The said amount was ordered to be recovered in equal instalments leaving 40% of the carry home salary till they are in service and if any amount remains due/balance at the time of retirement, to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the officials. Both the petitioners preferred separate appeals before the Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority gave personal hearing to the petitioners and after hearing them allowed the appeals and remanded the matters back to the punishing authority to take decision afresh vide order dated 27.2.2003 and petitioners were informed that their appeals stand disposed of. Thereafter respondent no.2 decided to hold Fresh Enquiry vide order dated 12.3.2003 and one Sh.Girdhari Lal, Joint Director, Head Office was CWP NO. 15582 OF 2007 & 3 CWP NO.2536 OF 2008 appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Accounts Officer, Circle Office, Jalandhar as the Presenting Officer. This order of holding fresh enquiry was in respect of as many as six Officials, including the petitioners herein. One of the delinquent officials, namely, Raghbir Singh against whom similar proceedings had been ordered and his case was remanded back by the Appellate Authority, filed CWP No.10372 of 2003 before this Court and further proceedings in the matter were stayed. In the meanwhile, Sh.Girdhari Lal, Additional Director who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer also retired. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed another Officer as the Enquiry Officer who was asked to proceed with the enquiry after the stay order is vacated by this Court. While further disciplinary proceedings had been stayed, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P-5 in CWP No.15582 of 2007 & Annexure P-7 in CWP No.2536 of 2008) whereby the appeals said to be filed by the petitioners against the order of the punishing authority have been rejected by separate orders of the same date. Replies have been filed in both the petitions. While admitting that the case was remanded by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.2.2003 and also that Girdhari Lal was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, the respondents have simply stated that the appeals preferred by the petitioners have been rejected. No reasons have been given as to how the earlier order of remand has been nullified and fresh order of rejection of the appeals has been passed. From the facts narrated here-in-above, it is apparent that the Appellate Authority having passed the order of remand, had no jurisdiction to again decide the appeals and that too, without recalling the first order and affording further opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein CWP NO. 15582 OF 2007 & 4 CWP NO.2536 OF 2008 (appellants before the Appellate Authority). In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are not sustainable in law, both on account of being illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and having been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P-5 in CWP No.15582 of 2007 & Annexure P-7 in CWP No.2536 of 2008) are hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to hold fresh enquiry in terms of the order dated 27.2.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, after the stay is vacated by the High Court in CWP No.10372 of 2003 filed by Raghbir Singh. A copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.1.2009 MFK NOTE: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES