IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 18 , 2009 1. CWP No. 2567 of 2009 Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and another 2. CWP No. 2624 of 2009 Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 3. CWP No. 2574 of 2009 Ujagar Ram vs. State of Haryana and another Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 2567 of 2009, 2624 of 2009 and 2574 of 2009. It is not disputed that no final order has been passed against the petitioners. The allegation is that the disciplinary authority has issued dissent note without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to support the findings of the Inquiry Officer as mandated by the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar reported as 1993(5) JT 532. CWP No. 2567 of 2009 -2- On the asking of the Court Mr. Harish Rathee, learned Senior DAG, Haryana has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has supplied nine copies of the writ petition to the learned Senior DAG. I put it to the learned Senior DAG if it would be appropriate for this Court to set aside the dissent note, grant the petitioners 15 days time to submit a written representation in favour of the inquiry report and that thereafter the disciplinary authority may take a fresh decision in the matter. Despite his argument that in fact no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, Mr.Rathee has stated that in order to avoid further litigation on this peripheral issue he would not be averse if this order is passed since the power of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action has not been circumscribed in any manner. In the circumstances the dissent note Annexure P-7 is set aside giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in the manner indicated above. Since Mr.Rathee has not had the opportunity to go through the petitions, liberty is also granted to the respondents to apply for modification of this order in case it is felt necessary. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 18, 2009 sunita