BALJEET SINGH MAHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Baljeet Singh Mahal, Secretary, Market Committee, Amritsar, takes strong exception to the orders of suspension (Annexure P-6) handed over to him on 6th of October, 1995, which reads thus :

(2.) In so far as respondent-Board is concerned, it has not at all contested the claim of the petitioner. Rather, the averments made in the petition have been admitted. It has not been disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of the Board that any enquiry was either pending against the petitioner or the same was contemplated. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner has been appreciated and he has been styled to be one of the best officers in the Board. However, the matter has been contested by the State Government wherein it is pleaded that by virtue of provisions contained in Section 3.8 of the Act, the government can exercise superintendence and control over the Board and its officers and can call for such information as it may deem necessary and in the event of its being satisfied that the Board is not functioning properly or is abusing its powers or is guilty of corruption or mis- management, it may suspend the Board and till such time a Board is constituted, make such arrangements for the exercise of the functions of the Board as it may think fit. It is also placed that number of complaints were received and the allegations contained in the complaints aforesaid were being enquired into by the Vigilance Officer where a Regular Enquiry No.22 dated 22nd of June, 1995 has been registered against the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the complaint subject matter of enquiry against the petitioner and the relevant file shall be shown to the Court at the time of hearing.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records. There is no need to go into all the points canvassed in support of the petition. For setting aside the order of suspension dated 6th October, 1995 as in considered view of this Court, the petitioner deserves the desired relief on the sole ground that at the time when order of suspension was passed against him there was neither any enquiry pending nor contemplated against him. Rule dealing with the suspension i.e. Rule 4.1 reads thus :-