C.W.P. No. 7844 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7844 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 04, 2011 Amrik Singh son of Joginder Singh .... PETITIONER Vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Power Com) and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.08.2001 passed by The Additional Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Power Com)-respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of his conviction under Section 306 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with penalty of ` 5,000/- in the event of non-payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. This order of conviction and sentence was passed on 15.11.2000. The appeal, which C.W.P. No. 7844 of 2011 2 was preferred by the petitioner, has also been decided by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2010 (Annexure P-1), vide which the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC has been sustained and the only relief, the petitioner/appellant had received from this Court, is that the sentence qua imprisonment was reduced to already undergone by him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2001 (Annexure P-2), the competent authority did not take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner. As per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kaur Singh and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (4) RSJ 780, while relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985 (2) SLR 576 and other judgments, came to the conclusion that the competent authority was required to consider the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the mis-conduct committed by him and the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming features if any present in the case. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order, which does not take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the mandate of the law, deserves to be set aside. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, there can be no dispute with regard to the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, these principles are to be seen whether have been applied while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2001 (Annexure P-2) by the competent authority. C.W.P. No. 7844 of 2011 3 A perusal of this order would show that the factual aspect with regard to the registration of FIR, his remaining in jail and the grant of bail by this Court and thereafter, the conviction and sentence by the trial Court had been taken into consideration. That apart, the conduct of the petitioner has been specifically looked into by the respondent and it has been observed that the conduct of Amrik Singh son of Joginder Singh being not good, criminal charge of burning his wife to death was proved by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, for which he was awarded sentence and further relying upon the instructions issued by the Board, the petitioner was dismissed from service. That being the position and further in the light of the fact that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 198-SB of 2001 decided on 06.12.2010, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 306 IPC was maintained and as a matter of fact, counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant, therefore, not much is required to be said on that. It may be added here that the wife of the petitioner committed suicide, as per the allegations, because the petitioner was having illicit relations with one Bholi d/o Pakhar Ram, who was residing opposite to the house of Amrik, which became a cause of fight between the petitioner and his wife leading to her burning herself within a period of four months' from the date of marriage speaks more than required. Nothing more is required to be considered and mentioned about the conduct of the petitioner. It is apparent from the judgment, which has been relied upon by the competent authority while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2001 (Annexure P-2). Further there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court, as the impugned order is of the year 2001 while the petitioner has approached now after about 10 years with no change in circumstances. This in itself is a ground for not entertaining this writ petition. C.W.P. No. 7844 of 2011 4 Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 04, 2011 JUDGE pj