IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3092 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.2.2009. Juj Kumar Sathi ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner while serving as a Peon in Tehsil Office, Tarn Taran in the year 1994-95 was served with a charge sheet vide letter dated 29.6.1995 on the allegations of being absent from service on the dates indicated therein. Copy of the charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. His reply was solicited to the charge sheet. Since, no reply was received, petitioner was served with a reminder letter dated 9.12.2002 asking him to submit the written reply. It is alleged that thereafter an ex- parte enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was terminated vide the impugned order dated 12.6.2004 (Annexure P-4). It is this order, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The main grounds on which the order of termination has been assailed are: (i) that the enquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioner and without calling him before the Enquiry Officer, (ii) the order is malafide in nature and (iii) petitioner was to retire on 31.3.2005. Learned counsel CWP No. 3092 of 2007 -2- appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that neither the copy of the enquiry report was served upon him nor he was served with the show cause notice. Petitioner earlier filed CWP No. 4835 of 2005 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.4.2005 with the following observations:- “ We have perused the paper book. The petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 12.6.2004. The petitioner was working as a Peon. The petitioner has been punished under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970. Consequently the order is clearly appealable. We dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondents. Since the appeal was pending, petitioner filed another writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3868 of 2006 which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.3.2006 giving a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petition expeditiously. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.9.2006. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition, challenging his termination on the ground referred to herein above. In the reply filed, the respondents have given details of various adverse reports and punishments suffered by the petitioner earlier. It is also stated that show cause notice was served upon the petitioner to which reply has also been filed. The main contention of the petitioner is that no enquiry report was served upon him, though, an ex-parte enquiry seems to have been held. Ms. Tuli has produced the record of the enquiry. On enquiry from the Court, a copy of the communication dated 12.9.2003 from the Assistant CWP No. 3092 of 2007 -3- Commissioner (Grievances), Amritsar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar has been placed on record, which is said to be the enquiry report. Except this document, no other document has been shown to the Court as enquiry report. From the perusal of the aforesaid document it appears that it is only a communication which indicates that the petitioner has failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, neither there is any enquiry report nor any finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. State has failed to place on record any material to indicate that any valid enquiry report was formulated by the Enquiry Officer based upon any evidence/material. This clearly shows that as a matter of fact no valid enquiry was ever held. This is sufficient to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has recorded so many facts which are not borne out from any enquiry report. This further establishes that the facts have been recorded from the material which is extraneous to the enquiry. This recourse is impermissible in law. The Appellate Authority has also not gone into this aspect of the matter. Since, there is no finding or proof of charge against the petitioner in any valid enquiry, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.6.2004 as also the order dated 28.7.2005 are hereby quashed. Consequently petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. During the period petitioner remained out of service, he will not be entitled to the monetary benefit, however, the respondents shall give the notional benefit of increments and pay revision, if any to the petitioner and his salary refixed at the time of his superannuation. His retiral benefits shall also be settled and paid within four months. Since, the CWP No. 3092 of 2007 -4- petitioner has already superannuated, the request of the respondents to permit them to initiate fresh enquiry is declined. Petition is disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.2.2009 lucky