CWP No. 11549 of 2011

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 11549 of 2011

Date of decision July 7 , 2011

Jagdev Singh and another

....... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

........Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-

Mr. M. S. Gill, Advocate and

Mr. ADS Jattana, 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?

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1.

The petitioners seek the intervention of the Court

for initiating an departmental enquriy which was purported to be wrongly

concluded by respondent No.4 by dropping the proceedings against

respondent Nos.5 to 7. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 to 7

had involved petitioner and members of his family in a false case by

planting weapons as though they were illegally in their possession. They

were prosecuted but they were discharged of the offences alleged against

them by a competent court of jurisdiction. The petitioners had given a

complaint to the authorities on the basis of which a departmental action

was taken but the disciplinary authority namely the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Faridkot found the charges against respondent Nos.5 to 7 as not

established and dropped the departmental action.

2.

Learned counsel states that the departmental

enquiry itself was vitiated by a fundamental flaw of the complainant being

not being examined. In my view, the intervention sought through the writ

petition is without any legal basis. The petitioner has no locus standi to file

CWP No. 11549 of 2011

2

the petition and urge that a departmental action ought to have been

proceeded in any particular fashion. The petitioner cannot join issues on

the manner of conduct of departmental action by the only fact that he was

the complainant. Learned counsel referring to the decision in Sushil

Kumar Verms Vs. Union of India 2001(331) JT 537 in support of his

contention. The reliance on this judgment is wholly misplaced. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding a case of an enquiry conducted by a

bank against an employee and the conclusion that was taken on the basis

of an enquiry where the complainant had not been examined. The

employee against whom disciplinary action had concluded had challenged

the proceedings before the Labour Court and the Labour Court found that

the charge had not been established, especially in view of the fact that the

complainant had not been examined and the charges could not be taken as

established. The Labour Court, therefore, took the decision that the

departmental action was vitiated. The High Court reversed the decision. In

the Civil appeal filed by the employee, the Supreme Court held that the

departmental proceedings were vitiated by the non-examination of the

complainant. What is possible for a Court to decide on the basis of the

grievance expressed through an affected party, namely an employee in the

departmental proceedings, cannot be used by a third party to the

departmental proceedings. A private complainant against a government

employee on whose complaint a departmental action is taken cannot treat

himself as an aggrieved party to challenge the dropping of the proceedings

against an employee.

3.

The writ petition, in my view, is without any merit

and deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)

JUDGE

July 7, 2011

archana

CWP No. 11549 of 2011

3