IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15257 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:23.03.2011 R.T.B. Rai, Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Punjab. ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner and I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of records and with the assistance of the counsel for the State-Ms.Rita Kohli. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge-sheet dated 09.03.1989 issued by the second respondent namely, the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, for an act of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during his earlier employment with Punjab Small Industries Export Corporation Limited, arrayed as 4th respondent in the writ petition. The challenge to these proceedings is only as regards the competency of the authority to take action for an Civil Writ Petition No.15257 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - alleged misconduct during an earlier employment which was not in any way connected with the subsequent employment that he had taken under the Public Works Department. As I can see, the Punjab Small Industries Export Corporation is constituted under a statute and is an independent legal entity from the core Punjab Government department such as the Public Works Department. A misconduct in an earlier employment cannot be a subject of a departmental enquiry unless by some conduct rules of the present employer namely, the Public Works Department are violated. The petitioner had not been guilty of any misconduct. The statement sets out the fact that the previous employer namely, the Punjab Small Industries Export Corporation had forwarded a complaint to the Public Works Department that the petitioner had been guilty of causing loss to the extent of Rs.96,574/- and they were entitled to proceed against the petitioner for the loss caused by him. I cannot accept a plea that a complaint forwarded by the previous employer could become a subject of a charge-sheet against an employee of the latter employer when admittedly he was not guilty of any such misconduct during his employment with his employer, unless a past misconduct of an employee with some other employer is itself an enumerated misconduct under the relevant conduct rules. The action initiated by the employer by levying a charge-sheet will be seen to be wholly without jurisdiction. I quash the order and allow the writ petition. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.03.2011 sanjeev