STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SARABDEEP SINGH VIRK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) In the present Writ Petition, State of Punjab has questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 14th July 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in O.A. No. 15 of 2009. The necessary facts are that the Applicant before the Tribunal, an IPS Officer of 1970 batch, served in the State of Maharashtra from 1970 to 1984 in which year he was sent to State of Punjab, when, as stated by the Applicant, that State was in the grip of severe terrorism. He successfully handled the problems. He spent considerable time in the State of Punjab and was appointed as Director General of Police, Punjab. However, in the year 2007 some charges were levelled against the Applicant and a chargesheet was served upon him on 20th February 2007 containing various allegations which were disputed by the Applicant. Even prior thereto, seeing the attitude of the State Government, the Applicant had approached the Government of India on 5th March 2007 for his repatriation to his parent cadre i.e. State of Maharashtra. Ultimately, on 10th April 2007, he was repatriated to the State of Maharashtra and he actually joined the service cadre on 27th April 2007. His repatriation was objected to by the State of Punjab and the Applicant informed the State of Punjab that he was taken on the roll of the Government of Maharashtra. On 4th October 2007, the Applicant was placed under suspension in terms of Rule 3(8)(d) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. An FIR was registered against him on 8th September 2007 which, again according to the Applicant, was fabricated one . The Applicant was alleged to have been arrested. The Applicant thereupon filed an O.A. 692/CH/2007 before Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of suspension dated 4th April 2007 and charge sheet dated 20th April 2007. He also filed Petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Punjab & Haryana High Court vide its judgment dated 17th January 2008 held that the arrest of the Applicant was mala fide and vindictive. While making certain observations, the Court disbanded the investigating team and directed fresh inquiry by a new team. As far as the Application filed by the Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh was concerned, the same was allowed and order of suspension dated 4th April 2007 was declared illegal and as far as the charge sheet dated 20th April 2007 was concerned, the Tribunal directed that the entire matter be remitted to the Central Government to take final decision. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and vide its order dated 25th April 2008, the order of the Tribunal was stayed by the High Court, against which a Special Leave Petition was preferred and vide order dated 16th May 2008, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the authorities to remit the disciplinary proceedings to the Central Government and even permitted the Applicant to be repatriated to the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter, on 29th May 2008, the Applicant was given the posting of Director General of Police (Housing). It may also be noticed that another order dated 25th February 2008 was issued by the State of Punjab placing the Applicant under suspension. This order was also challenged by the Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 157 of 2008 and the operation of the said order was stayed by the Tribunal. On 25th May 2008, the Applicant filed a representation before Respondent No. 3 bringing to the notice of the concerned authorities the judgment of the Supreme Court and requiring them to act accordingly. The inquiry in furtherance to that charge sheet is stated to be in progress and exparte proceedings have been taken and the case was fixed for recording of exparte evidence. According to the stand of the Applicant, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, the Respondents had no authority to conduct departmental inquiry and it is violative of the orders of the Supreme Court and officer conducting inquiry should be directed to stay the inquiry and the matter be sent to the Central Government.

(3.) The Applicant thereafter filed Original Application No. 15 of 2009 before the the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, claiming the following prayers :6