CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although these petitions have been filed for quashing of different orders passed by the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, having regard to the nature of the issue raised in both the petitions, I am deciding them by a common order.

(2.) A few facts :-

(3.) In his written statement, the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Bhatinda) has pleaded that he had entrusted the enquiry to the District Officer Removal of Grievances (Executive Magistrate) but he did not conduct enquiry on the material point relating to the jurisdiction and, therefore, a direction was given to him to hold further enquiry. It has been admitted by respondent No. 2 that enquiry officer (Executive Magistrate) found that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved but it was found that the enquiry had not been made properly and, therefore, fresh enquiry was entrusted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate was at variance with the preliminary enquiry held by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) and he (respondent No. 2) gave more weightage to the preliminary enquiry held by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters). It has further been alleged that the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted an independent enquiry but the petitioner did not co-operate with same.