PARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has checkered history of litigation. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is noticed here -in -below:

(2.) THE Petitioner was served with a charge -sheet, - -vide Memo No. 9423 dated 11th February, 2002 (Annexure P -9), alleging that he was transferred from Drawing Section to Central Works Sub -Division No. 6, Amritsar, - -vide order dated 20th October, 2000 and relieved on 24th January, 2001, however, he did not submit the joining report to the Central Works Sub -Division No. 6 till the date of issuance of charge -sheet. He was accused of remaining absent from duty and disobeying the orders of the Executive Engineer. Written reply was solicited within 21 days. It is alleged that the Petitioner received the said charge -sheet in his office on 30th April, 2002. Reply thereto was submitted on 17th May, 2002 denying the allegations of absence from duty. He further objected to the competence of the authority issuing the charge -sheet. It appears that the reply did not find favour with the Respondents and an enquiry was ordered, - -vide order dated 24th October, 2002 whereby one Mr. S.P. Singh was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It is alleged that during the period of enquiry, neither he was paid any salary nor subsistence allowance. The Petitioner filed CWP No. 15948 of 2003. In response to the aforesaid writ petition, the Respondents pleaded that the enquiry against the Petitioner has been held. This Court, - -vide its order dated 27th September, 2004 (Annexure P -10) directed the Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioner with effect from 25th January, 2001 till the order of discharge dated 30th August, 2004. The aforesaid order was followed by the order dated 14th February, 2005. During the hearing on the said date, the Respondent pleaded that the Petitioner stands dismissed from service after completion of departmental proceedings and the Petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the departmental proceedings as also the order of dismissal 30th August, 2004 (Annexure P -13) before the appropriate authority.

(3.) THE Petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that he was appointed as Surveyor on work charge basis on 1st December, 1984 and his services were orally terminated on 23rd February, 1987. The order of termination was challenged in Civil Suit in the Court of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Amritsar. The suit was decreed in his favour, - -vide judgment dated 28th July, 1993 passed by the trial court and it was held that the Petitioner is liable to be regularized. He was allowed to join duty on 10th May, 1994 as Surveyor, but was not given other benefits emanating from the judgment. The Petitioner filed an Execution Application on 11th June, 1994 claiming all service benefits. The Executing Court, - -vide its order dated 24th April, 1995 clarified that Petitioner is to be regularized against the post of Surveyor in terms of the decree dated 27th August, 1993. The appeal preferred by the Respondent in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar resulted in dismissal on 23rd February, 1995. The Revision Petition filed against the order of Civil Court dated 24th April, 1995 was also decided by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 22nd February, 1999 and a direction was issued to regularize the services of the Petitioner on the post of Surveyor with effect from 24th February, 1987. The Petitioner again approached the Executing Court for compliance of the decree and, - -vide order dated 18th October, 1999, the Petitioner's services were regularized with effect from 24th February, 1987, but benefit was given with effect from 28th July, 1993. Another application was filed in the Executing Court where upon the Executing Court, - - vide order dated 17th May, 2000 directed the Respondents to give all the benefits to the Petitioner with effect from 24th February, 1987. Resultantly, the Petitioner was given the regular appointment, - -vide order dated 10th April, 2001. However, again it was mentioned that the Petitioner is regular work charge surveyor. The Petitioner was forced to make another application in the Executing Court where upon a clarification was sought and the Respondents filed an affidavit on 10th May, 2001 stating that the Petitioner has been regularized as Surveyor with effect from 24th February, 1987. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner claims that he was a regular employee at the time of issuance of charge -sheet. Mr. Chahal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has also conceded this position and has stated that the Petitioner was not on work charge and was a regular employee on the date of issuance of the charge -sheet. Even in the reply filed, it is admitted that the Petitioner was regular employee.