MANMOHAN SINGH WALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P -1) and 07.08.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which the application dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P -3) for issuance of directions to respondent No. 2 for complying with the order dated 12.01.2008 and on its failure to strike off the defence under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, has been dismissed as well as the application dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P -7) for directing respondent No. 2 to produce the remaining record as per order dated 12.01.2008 to enable the petitioner/plaintiff to file replication, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration that order dated 17.03.2003 passed by respondent/defendant No. 1, imposing penalty of dismissal of the petitioner/plaintiff from service on the recommendation of respondent/defendant No. 2, is illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and also for direction to reinstate him and release all the pecuniary benefits with interest, including proforma promotion etc. In the suit petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for issuing directions to defendant No. 2 for complying with the order dated 12.01.2008. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2013 by observing that the documents mentioned in the application are privileged documents and same cannot be given to the plaintiff. Thereafter, petitioner remained silent and the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner by observing that enquiry file is confidential and privileged document and the same cannot be supplied to the plaintiff when the defendants are alleging the same to be the privileged and confidential documents and during the trial if they fail to establish their plea regarding documents then defendants will suffer the consequences of taking the said plea. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to prove the said documents that these are not covered under the privileged and confidential documents.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that entire enquiry report has been submitted from page No. 1 to 671. The petitioner is asking for production of documents relating to appointment of sub -committee, proceedings and report of the sub -committee and its consideration by the Full Court. The matter was put up before the Full Court. The Full -Court approved the recommendations for dismissal of the petitioner in pursuance of the enquiry. The subcommittee is only for preparing brief notes before putting up the matter before the Full Court. The enquiry was conducted after associating the petitioner and enquiry report has also been supplied to the petitioner. The entire enquiry file is on record of the trial court. The proceedings before the Full Court are administrative in nature and are privileged documents. Petitioner cannot be associated in those proceedings nor contents can be shown to the petitioner; as such the application has rightly been rejected by the trial court.