J K DHIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Shri J.K. Dhir, who at the relevant time happened to be Superintending Engineer, Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project (for short 'SYL Canal Project'), petitioner Shri A.K. Ummat, who at the relevant time happened to be Chief Engineer (Co-ordination) of the SYL Canal Project and petitioner Shri D.P. Singla, who retired as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on 30th April, 1986, and at the relevant time was associated with 'SYL Canal Project' as Executive Engineer and was later on (on being promoted on 9th June, 1982), as Superintending Engineer (Administration) Accounts SYL Canal Project, at Chandigarh, have through separate writ petitions (C.W.P. No. 6298 of 1986, C.W.P. No. 6558 of 1986 and C.W.P. No. 6308 of 1986, respectively) have impugned the validity of the initiation of the departmental inquiry and its continuation at the instance of the Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government on the ground of its incompetency and lack of jurisdiction, for according to them only the Administrative Department of the petitioners, i.e., the Irrigation Department, was competent to initiate and continue the said departmental inquiries and not the Vigilance Department.

(2.) Sarvshri A.K. Ummat and D.P. Singla, petitioners, have additionally impugned the departmental inquiry initiated against them on 23rd July, 1984, and in the month of March, 1984, respectively, on two other grounds, viz. that the said enquiries could not be continued against them for the purpose of imposing punishment, as according to them, after their retirement, only an inquiry in terms of R.2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.S.R. Rules') for purposes of imposing cut in their pension alone is competent and (ii) that the pending departmental inquiry, in question, could not be continued even for the purpose of imposing cut in pension in terms of R.2.2(b) of the C.S.R. Rules.

(3.) Since all the three writ petitions (Nos. 6298, 6558 and 6308 of 1986) involve common questions of law and facts, they are proposed to be decided by a single judgement, which shall be read in Civil Writ Petition No. 6298 of 1986. Reference to facts where found necessary would be made from the said petition, except where facts peculiar to a given petition are required to be adverted to.