MALKIAT SINGH DHALIWAL Vs. MANPREET KAUR DHALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by Malkiat Singh Dhaliwal, Divisional Engineer Telephones, Jagraon, seeking quashing of complaint/ protest petition dated 25th March, 2004 (Annexure P -4) and summoning order dated 1st May, 2004 (Annexure P -5).

(2.) CASE of the Petitioner is that he was working as a Senior Divisional Engineer Telephones and had rendered service of more than 32 years. It has been further averred that husband of the complainant, Darshan Singh was working as Sub -Divisional Officer. On 10th October, 2001, he absented from duty and he was issued a show cause notice for violation of departmental rules (Annexure P -l), due to which wife of Darshan Singh had lodged an FIR bearing No. 217 dated 22nd October, 2001 under Section 3(1)x of Prevention of Atrocities of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 at Police Station Jagraon. Counsel has further submitted that departmental inquiry was conducted by three senior level officers, who - -vide Annexure P -9 found the allegations to be false and it was further held therein that complainant and her husband are habitual of making such complaints. It has been further averred that the FIR was investigated and enquired into by the DSP Jagraon, who relied upon the testimony of various witnesses and came to the conclusion that no offence has been committed and that the version of complaint was false, and a cancellation report was submitted. Counsel has further submitted that complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P -4) and also submitted a protest petition in the Court of Illaqua Magistrate, where cancellation report was submitted. Counsel has stated that for the averments made in the petition, the order (Annexure P -5) whereby cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, is liable to be quashed. Counsel has relied upon order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench, whereby notice of motion was issued and further proceedings were stayed. Order dated 22nd February, 2008, counsel states, contains all his contentions. Therefore, it will be apposite here to reproduce order dated 22nd February, 2008, which reads as under:

(3.) MR . C.L. Verma appearing for the complainant states that departmental inquiry report is not perse admissible. Petitioner is an influential high official and therefore, his grouse is, a false cancellation report has been submitted. He has further stated that show cause notice (Annexure P -l) has been issued later. Leave was duly sanctioned to him on 10th October, 2001.