SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is ordered to be segregated from the CWP No. 38559 of 2011 and is being dispose of accordingly.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred the writ petition filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No. 1 to 4 not to conduct repeated enquiries involving the same facts and for issuance of directions for granting stay of proceedings in enquiry No. F.C. No. 16/06. Further prayer is made for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to disclose the credentials of the respondent No. 5 and to follow the Government instructions as contained in Chapter II Rule 5.1 and 5.2 of the Vigilance Manual.

(3.) Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. He has now retired from service in the year 2010. It comes out that on 110.2004, a news item appeared in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" (Annexure P-1) wherein allegations were levelled against the petitioner for amassing the property worth crores, mentioning that complaint was received from one Hartej Singh-respondent No. 5. It comes out that as a consequence thereof, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab had registered an enquiry F.C. No. 162/05 against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.), Vigilance Bureau, Unit II, Ludhiana, regarding following six charges: -