CWP No.9186 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9186 of 1999 Date of decision : 22-07-2010 Diwan Chand Sachdeva ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) The present writ petition was filed praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and Annexure P-12 charge sheet, dated 17.05.1999, served upon the petitioner, be set aside. Petitioner filed writ petition in this Court on 7.07.1999. Before the admission of the writ petition, enquiry stood concluded and final order of punishment was passed on 15.07.2001 and two annual increments awarded to the petitioner were stopped and conduct of the petitioner was also censured. Petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the punishment order. The main thrust of the argument advanced in the present writ petition is that in view of the judgment of the Civil Court, authorities could not have served the charge sheet upon the petitioner. Earlier on the same charge sheet, punishment of reduction and recovery was awarded. That order was set aside by the Civil Court (Sub Judge IInd Class, Gurgaon) on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following portion of the judgment of the Civil Court:- CWP No.9186 of 1999 -2- “In view of my findings on the above issues the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order dated 7.11.85 passed by defendant No.3 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice and is not in any way binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is treated as SDC since the date of his reversion and that the plaintiff is also entitled to difference of pay between two posts and also the suspension allowance for the period from 14.11.81 to 7.11.85 with all other benefits admissible to the plaintiff under the rules. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room.” This Court can become oblivious of the fact that before grant of relief pertaining to issue No.1 trial Court, while holding discussion, held that order was passed at the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. To overcome this technical lapse charge sheet P-12 impugned in the writ petition was served upon the petitioner. Be that as it may, before the admission of the writ petition, in pursuance of impugned charge sheet, enquiry was held and punishment was awarded. The order of punishment has not been assailed as the same being minor in nature was impliedly accepted by the petitioner. Hence, this Court cannot cause interference at this belated stage. Dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 22-07-2010 JUDGE manju