LAWS(P&H)-2016-11-142

JAGJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Decided On November 07, 2016
JAGJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In his tirade against the petitioner his uncle left no stone unturned including making an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this petition for being impleaded as a party to oppose it. The Coordinate Bench on September 27, 2006 noticed the pleadings and dismissed the application observing that the applicant has got other ways and means to settle scores with the petitioner but permitting him to become a party does not seem to be proper for the just decision of the writ petition.

(2.) No one appears for the High Court or the Sessions Division but that would not deter this Court from passing a final order after hearing Mr. Chopra.

(3.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was an employee of the Sessions Division Patiala when his uncle made a complaint against him that he had deposited Rs. 80,000/- to apply for allotment of a flat in a scheme floated by the Chandigarh Housing Board. He was on deputation from Sessions Division, Patiala to the Sessions Division, Chandigarh. The complaint was taken cognizance of and an inquiry was instituted in the matter. In the inquiry, it was found that deposit had been made with the Housing Board but petitioner was an unsuccessful applicant and the money was returned by the Board. The District and Sessions Judge, Patiala in his report dated May 31, 1999 found without doubt that the official was "completely and totally remiss in his obligation to report the matter to his department before applying for a flat and to seek permission and even ex post facto sanction to raise the loan". The disciplinary authority, however, found a mitigating circumstance that the application for allotment was rejected by the Housing Board and the money borrowed by the petitioner towards application amount was returned to his respective creditors. The learned D&SJ Patiala records that the matter would have been found serious if the official had failed to give a proper explanation in case of allotment of a house.