SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition, the prayer made by the petitioner is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 5 to take a decision with regard to the departmental enquiry contemplated against respondent No.6.

(2.) A perusal of Annexure P-9, placed on the record of this case through C.M. No.4530-31 of 2007 reveals, that a confidential enquiry report, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, was sent by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, Kapurthala, to the Superintending Engineer, Construction Division No.1, Jalandhar Cantt., which was then forwarded to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, B&R Branch, Patiala, who in turn, ordered the issuance of a charge-sheet to respondent No.6. A perusal of Annexure P-9 further reveals, that a chargesheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, has already been drawn against respondent No.6. In view of the above, it is apparent, that not only the complaint made by the petitioner has been taken into consideration, but a confidential enquiry has also been conducted in respect thereof, and further, a chargesheet has been drawn against respondent No.6.. This, in our view, takes care of the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, as has been noticed in the opening paragraph of this order. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.