STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajit Singh, the respondent herein, was employed as Superintendent in the Office of District Food and Supplies Controller at Patiala. One Narinder kumar Malhotra, who was employed as Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies, patiala, was dismissed from service by order dated 8/2/1988. The said order of dismissal of Narinder Kumar Malhotra was received in the office of respondent for delivery to Narinder Kumar Malhotra on 11/2/1988 but it was not served on him and he was able to obtain stay of the said order in the civil suit filed by him. Having regard to the conduct of the respondent in having failed to serve the order of dismissal on Narinder Kumar Malhotra, the respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 13/4/1988 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of a charge- sheet dated 13/7/1988. The representation submitted by the respondent against the order of suspension was rejected by the State government by order dated 12/7/1988. The respondent filed a writ petition (CWP No. 6950 of 1988 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the order of suspension, the charge and the order rejecting the representation against the order of suspension. The said writ petition of the respondent was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High court by judgment dated 31/5/1989. The letters patent appeal (lpa no. 1631 of 1989 filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25/9/1989.

(2.) We have heard Shri H. S. Munjral, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri S. K. Bagga, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High court insofar as the quashing of the order of suspension is concerned. We are, however, of the view that the High court was in error in setting aside the charge-sheet that was served on the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. In doing so the High court has gone into the merits of the allegations on which the charge-sheet was based and even though the charges had yet to be proved by evidence to be adduced in the disciplinary proceedings. The High court, accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has proceeded on the basis that there was no merit in the charges levelled against the respondent. We are unable to uphold this approach of the high court. The allegations are based on documents which would have been produced as evidence to prove the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. Till such evidence was produced it could not be said that the charges contained in the charge-sheet were without any basis whatsoever.