AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Chowkidar, vide order dated June 2, 2000, he was ordered to be removed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that the order dated June 2, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3 with the writ petition, be quashed.

(2.) Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a written statement. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 42 of the Chaukidara Rules.

(3.) Faced with this situation, Mr. B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to fib an appeal within one month from today. Learned counsel, however, points out that under the provisions of Rule 42, an order of removal passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has not been made appealable specifically, Mr. M.C. Berry, Senior D.A.G. Punjab, states that the appeal is competent and that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy. He further states that no limitation has been prescribed. However, since, the petitioner has been pursuing the writ petition, the objection of laches or limitation shall not be raised.