CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21483 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 02,2010 Narender Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Channan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was detailed for undergoing a Police Commando Instructor Course, which was scheduled from 7.7.2008 to 27.9.2008. As soon as, the petitioner reached at NSG Training Centre, Manesar, Gurgaon, he statedly developed testicular pain and was taken to hospital on 8.7.2008. The doctor gave him medicines and advised rest, which continued for two days. As per the petitioner, subsequently he got hurt while doing obstacle (BOAX) and developed back pain. He was again taken to NSG Hospital on 14.7.2008, where the doctor gave him some medicines and injection as well. Since the petitioner, by then, had improved but due to 10% shortage of attendance, he was returned from the Course. This led to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21483 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: holding of an enquiry against him. Initially, preliminary fact finding enquiry was ordered by the S.P. Commando Unit, which was followed by a regular enquiry. On the basis of findings, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition to challenge the said punishment. Learned counsel would first submit that the preliminary enquiry has alone been found the basis of taking action against the petitioner, which will not be permissible under law. He, however, concedes that the witnesses were ultimately examined before regular enquiry and they stood by the statements which they made. Thus, proceedings can not be said to be in violation of any of the provision of law or of principles of natural justice. The witnesses examined in the preliminary enquiry appeared before the regular enquiry to stand by their statements, in my view, would not lead to any infirmity calling for interference in the punishment. The petitioner, who was sent on a course, apparently has shamed and managed to escape the rigors of the course, for which action has been taken against him. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE