IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3444 of 2010 Decided on: 1.6.2011. __________________________________________________________ Narinder Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Power Grid Corporation of India & others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioner has approached this Court by praying for a direction not to proceed against him by way of departmental action until the criminal proceedings are concluded. The Investigating Officer is present before this court. It is submitted that investigation has been completed and what remains is only the sanction for prosecution for which the request is pending before the Power Grid Corporation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred out of Himachal Pradesh on re- instatement pending inquiry. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the information furnished by the Investigating Officer has not been properly understood by them, while ordering re-instatement of the petitioner in service. He has also tendered written apology in the affidavit in not properly understanding the communication from the Investigating Officer. In matters pertaining to moral turpitude and in particular, Corruption cases, the respondents No. 1 to 4 should be more careful and more vigilant. Discipline is a sine qua non for the proper administration. Therefore, any act of indiscipline, misconduct and issues touching 2 on integrity are to be seriously addressed. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that this will be the first and last case of this sort and hereafter the officers will be extremely careful in such matters. 3. In view of the submissions, as above, this Court reluctantly refrains from making any further observations in that regard. There will be a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to take a decision on the request made by the Investigating Officer for sanction of prosecution within a week. Depending upon the action taken by respondents No. 1 to 4, the Investigating Officer will take further action. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. The nature of the action already taken in the matter and in view of the intervening developments, we do not find any impediment in granting the request made by the petitioner for withdrawing the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, maintaining the observations made above, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) June 1, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender)