CWP No.2535 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.1935 of 2010 in/and CWP No.2535 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Harbans Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.07.2008/01.09.2008 (Annexure P11), whereby, punishment of forfeiture of one-year service besides recovery, without any future effect, has been imposed on him after holding a departmental enquiry. (2). It is apparent from the impugned order that two officials, namely, the petitioner and Manjit Singh were dealt with together and vide a common order, both of them have been punished. (3). It is not in dispute that the impugned order qua Manjit Singh has already been quashed by this CWP No.2535 of 2009.doc - 2 – Court in CWP No.17207 OF 2008 decided on 19.05.2009 with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of personal hearing. (4). The respondents have no objection and rather want that the impugned order qua the petitioner be also quashed with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (5). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 30.07.2008/01.09.2008 (Annexure P11), is hereby quashed, however, with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after taking notice of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition and/or before the competent authority. It shall be desirable if the competent authority accord personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the fresh order. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Needless to say that the appropriate orders regarding as to how the suspension period of the petitioner is to be dealt with and/or release of increments shall also be passed thereafter without CWP No.2535 of 2009.doc - 3 – any delay keeping in view the outcome of the enquiry. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.02.2010 vishal shonkar