PRINCE GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the charge sheet issued to the petitioner vide memo No.M.U.G/Estt./2222 dtd. 18/11/2025 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.3 and the consequential departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing respondents No.2 & 3 to transfer the departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the petitioner before respondent No.4.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner INTER ALIA contends that the petitioner is working as Field Sales Representative posted at Verka Milk Plant, Gurdaspur. He further submits that some employees submitted complaints alleging corruption and adulteration in connivance with the senior officers including respondent No.3. Though the petitioner had no role, respondent No.3 suspected him of sending the complaints using others' names and filed a police complaint against him. The petitioner filed for pre-arrest bail and the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the same on 19/9/2025 as discernible from Annexure P-2 with a direction for one week's notice if an FIR is registered. The petitioner was subjected to constant harassment which compelled him to file a civil suit for injunction against respondent No.3 on 18/9/2025 which is pending. In retaliation, respondent No.3 issued a charge sheet alleging insubordination and unauthorized absence. The petitioner was suspended vide order dtd. 19/9/2025. The petitioner apprehends that due to the apparent bias-ness, his case would not be conducted fairly and the disciplinary proceedings due to the influence of respondent No.3, have been initiated against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 26/11/2025 (Annexure P-6) as well as filed a representation on 19/12/2025 (Annexure P-7) for transfer of the departmental enquiry/disciplinary proceedings from Gurdaspur to any other district.

(3.) The learned State counsel submits that the State is only a proforma respondent, whereas, contesting party is respondents No.2 & 3.