Civil Writ Petition No.4686 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4686 of 2008 Date of decision: March 24, 2008 Managing Committee, Shazada Nand College for Girls, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, through the President. … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by Managing Committee, Shazada Nand College for Girls, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, through its President assailing Annexure P-7 passed by Director Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab (respondent No.3) on 7th January, 2008. It has been urged that inquiry officer submitted his report (Annexure P-1) and managing committee, after examining the inquiry report, was of the opinion that the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed upon the respondent No.4. Therefore, in compliance with the rules, an application dated 10th September, 2005 was submitted to DPI, Punjab for granting approval for dismissing respondent No.4. DPI Punjab, on 24th March, 2006, rejected the application vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner had impugned Annexure P-2 in appeal before the Presiding Officer, State Colleges Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide order (Annexure P-3) observed as under: “After having listened to both the parties and having perused the record produced in the Court, there is no doubt Civil Writ Petition No.4686 of 2008 2 that the Inquiry Officer has adopted the procedure laid down under the rules in its letter and spirits. The allegation of biased against the Inquiry Officer is totally unjustified. The Inquiry Officer cannot be changed merely because the charged officer alleges biased or malafide. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry impartially and has given full justification against each and every allegation, which stands proved. The DPI (C) has referred to two noting signed by the Inquiry Officer on the same date, i.e. 16.08.2005, to base the whole judgment on this aspect alone it is unjustified. The case is hereby remanded back to DPI (C) who should satisfy himself, after receiving the noting portion, as well as the record of original inquiry, about the procedure for which two orders dated 16.8.2005, was signed and then pronounce his decision afresh. Parties are directed to appear before DPI (C) on 4th September, 2006.” Respondent No.4 challenged the order (Annexure P-3) in civil writ petition No.14482 of 2006 and this Court on 6th September, 2007 (Annexure P-6) passed the following order: “This is a petition for quashing of impugned order dated August 8, 2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. The operative part of this order is as under:- ‘The case is hereby remanded back to DPI (C) who should satisfy himself after receiving the noting portion., as well as the record of original inquiry about the procedure for which two orders dated 16.8.2005, was signed and then pronounce his decision afresh.’ Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the above order which has simply remanded the matter back to DPI (C). However, we would like to observe that DPI (C) should pronounce his decision uninfluenced by any finding recorded against the petitioner in Annexure P-8. DPI (C) should decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 6, 2007 Sd/- K.S.Grewal, Judge Sd/- S.N. Aggarwal, Judge” Civil Writ Petition No.4686 of 2008 3 It has been stated that respondent No.3, DPI (Colleges), Punjab Chandigarh committed a grave error by deciding the entire issue afresh and has absolved answering respondent No.4 from the charges, for which she was indicted by the inquiry officer and therefore, has overstepped his jurisdiction as the same was limited by the appellate authority and he could not go further except to decide the case in accordance with limitation imposed by the appellate authority. By way of the present writ petition, we have been called upon to interpret the observation of the appellate authority in Annexure P-3 and of this Court in Annexure P-6. The following portions, on which attention has been drawn, are reproduced below: “The case is hereby remanded back to DPI (C) who should satisfy himself, after receiving the noting portion, as well as the record of original inquiry, about the procedure for which two orders dated 16.8.2005, was signed and then pronounce his decision afresh. Parties are directed to appear before DPI (C) on 4th September, 2006.” “However, we would like to observe that DPI (C) should pronounce his decision uninfluenced by any finding recorded against the petitioner in Annexure P-8.” Appellate authority had directed the DPI (Colleges), Punjab (respondent No.3) to “then pronounce his decision afresh” and this Court had held “should pronounce his decision uninfluenced by any finding recorded against the petitioner in Annexure P-8”. A harmonious construction of these will lead to only conclusion that DPI(C) is seized of the entire controversy. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary has given the meaning of “afresh” as “again, especially from the beginning or with new ideas”. This Court had further enlarged the scope by directing DPI (Colleges), Punjab not to be influenced by any finding recorded against the petitioner, Civil Writ Petition No.4686 of 2008 4 i.e. respondent No.4 in the earlier writ petition (order Annexure P-6). Therefore, there is no doubt that the entire matter was before the DPI (Colleges), Punjab to decide when the case was remanded to him. Therefore, submission of the petitioner that while deciding the matter after the remand, DPI (Colleges), Punjab had only to confine himself to two notings signed by the inquiry officer on the same day, is misplaced and cannot be entertained. Hence, present writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge March 24, 2008. rps