IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.17885 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 24.3.2008 Jasmer Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Sh.T.P. Singh, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and Another .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .*.*. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed by one Jasmer Singh, stated to be a Public Interest Litigation with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo-warranto to declare the action of respondent No.1 in reinstating respondent No.2 as District Sainik Welfare Officer, as illegal & passed without jurisdiction. We cannot understand how the public interest is going to be suffered by an action of the Government, which has been taken on an application for review by respondent No.2 on a decision as has been passed by the respondents. Arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the action of the respondents is not in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Delhi High Court in view of the judgments reported in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1963, SC 395 and Shri R.K. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981(1) SLR, Delhi High Court, 753. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 is para-materia and, therefore, the authority of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Shri R.K. Gupta's case (supra) is CWP.NO.17885 of 2007 #2# applicable to the facts of the case. We are afraid that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. Even if the Rules are para-materia, the question before us, as has been agitated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the respondents has altogether different dimension. Inquiry was held against respondent No.2. Inquiry Officer forwarded the regular inquiry report against respondent No.2 and out of the charges, only two charges i.e 1 & 3 were held proved whereas remaining charges were not held proved. Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding charges No.1 to 4,5 & 6 and holding charge No.3 as only proved, he was asked to give his explanation. Respondent No.2 submitted his reply. Case was then forwarded to PPSC and the PPSC vide its letter dated 7.2.2006, gave the approval for removal of respondent No.2 from government service. The order issued by the Government removing respondent No.2 from service is dated 18.4.2006 (P.3). Thereafter, an appeal was filed by respondent No.2 against the order of removal dated 18.4.2006. However, the word “review” has been used in the body of the application. This appeal/review was filed on 7.4.2006, which was addressed to the previous Chief Minister. As it will have material bearing on the impugned order, therefore, on the basis of chronological facts as stated above, we ordered for production of record, which has been produced today. The then Chief Minister on 5.4.2006 ordered that three increments be stopped with cumulative effect observing that he did not agree with the recommendation of removal of the said officer. It seems that the Principal Secretary brought to the notice of the then Chief Minister that PPSC has recommended the case for removal and therefore, the major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect be not awarded to respondent No.2. Chief Minister simply signed the proposal/order on the file on 12.4.2006. On 18.4.2006, respondent No.2 was informed of his removal. Respondent No.2 filed appeal/review dated 27.4.2006 to the Chief Minister and on 26.6.2006, the then Chief Minister again dealt with the file. On 16.10.2006, the Principal Secretary recorded the note on the file “Discussed. The case has been once again examined and it is seen that the appeal is time barred. On merit also, there is no ground to justify review of CWP.NO.17885 of 2007 #3# the Government order. Hence the appeal may be rejected”. Appeal was sent to the Chief Minister and the then Chief Minister simply signed thereby approving the said order on 16.10.2006. On 15.3.2007, respondent No.2 filed an appeal to the Government and reminder by way of representation was sent on 9.5.2007 vide which he made a request for personal hearing and the Government gave personal hearing to him on 18.7.2007. In the meanwhile, it seems that respondent No.2 had filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.8406 of 2006 with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing impugned order dated 18.4.2006, whereby services of the petitioner as District Sainik Welfare Officer have illegally been terminated. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 26.9.2007 as the State Government has asked respondent No.2 that his case will be considered if he withdraws his petition in the Court. It is in this background that case of respondent No.2 was examined. On the said representation, what the Government has done? It has not recalled the order of removal but that order has been kept in abeyance till further inquiry keeping the totality of the circumstances. The Principal Secretary while examining the case vide order dated 18.10.2007 ordered that the order dated 18.4.2006 will be held in abeyance so that fresh inquiry into the reply given by respondent No.2 to the charges contained in the dissenting note of the Government and into the reply given by respondent No.2 to the original charges contained in the charge sheet should be looked into. Therefore, judging from any angle, it is not the case, where review after review has been considered for any extraneous consideration. In the interest of natural justice, if the State has taken the appeal of respondent No.2 for re-consideration while keeping in mind the order passed earlier, no injustice has been caused to any side. In the Public Interest Litigation, petitioner has misused the process of law. Dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE March 24, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE