SADHU SINGH CHAHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes of C. W. P. Nos. 9605 of 1990, 17973 of 1991 and 7067 of 1992.

(2.) SADHU Singh Chahal, Junior Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, Public Works Department (B and R. Branch), Rampura Phool, district Bathinda (Petitioner in CWP No. 9605 of 1990) and Harnek Singh, Ex-Sub Divisional Engineer, Construction Sub Division No. 2, Malerkotla (Petitioner in CWP No. 7067 of 1992) have challenged the charge memos contained in Memo No. 8698-BRI (I)-85, dated October 11, 1985 (bearing the same number) and the appointment of Shri G. S. Sodhi, Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh Construction Circle, Punjab, Public Works Department (B and R Branch), Chandigarh as Inquiry Officer under Rule 8 (2) of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules) for holding joint enquiry against them and Sarvshri Sarabjit Singh, Executive Engineer, Hans Raj Dewan, Executive Engineer (Retd.) and Darshan Singh, Junior Engineer. In C. W. P. No. 17973 of 1991, Harnek Singh has sought a mandate to the State of Punjab through the Secretary, Public Works Department (Bandr Branch), Chandigarh and the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Works Department (Bandr Branch), Patiala, to regularise his pension and release him gratuity, commuted pension, leave encashment, etc. along with 12 per cent compound interest.

(3.) C. W. P. No. 17973 of 1991 came up for motion hearing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Ashok Bhan, J. on January 29, 1992, which passed the following order :" Notice of motion was issued. Prayer for adjournment is opposed. Counsel heard. Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a Division Bench decision in K. N. Datt v. State of Haryana, 1991 (1) SLR 223. The decision undoubtedly supports the contention raised. We, however, find that in that Division Bench judgment, there is no mention of Rule 2. 2 (c) of the Punjab C. S. R. , Volume II, which specifically provides that pending an enquiry against a Government employee initiated during the service or after his retirement, the amount of gratuity may not be paid until the final disposal of the proceedings. That being so, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel needs reconsideration. Admitted to DB. " On April 22, 1993, when this petition came up for hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the charge memo served upon this petitioner was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 7067 of 1992. It was also brought to our notice that Sh. Sadhu Singh, a Junior Engineer, had also challenged the identical charge memo in Civil Writ Petition No. 9605 of 1990. We accordingly directed that Civil Writ Petitions No. 7067 of 1992 and 9605 of 1990 be set down for hearing along with C. W. P. No. 17973 of 1991. It is how these three writ petitions have been placed before us.