Punjab and Haryana High Court
WRIT PETITION 2188 of 1991 on 7 September 1984
CWP No.2188 of 1991 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2188 of 1991Date of decision: December 22, 2008.
Nand Singh Anand
...Petitioner(s)
v.
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab & Anr.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:Shri Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J.- (Oral):
The petitioner seeks a mandamus for finalization of thedisciplinary proceedings pending against him and thereafter to grant himpromotion, arrears of salary and other service benefits.
Page 1 of 2
While working as Senior Branch Officer with Markfed at Sangrur, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.4.1984(Annexure P-1). Before that, the petitioner was placed under suspension on21.9.1983 which was revoked vide order dated 28.1.1987. The petitionersubmitted his reply to the charge-sheet. It further appears that besides the CWP No.2188 of 1991 -: 2 :- petitioner, some more employees were also charge-sheeted by the Markfed.An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 7.9.1984 to conduct a joint inquiryagainst all of them. It further appears that while the inquiry proceedingswere near completion, one of the charge-sheeted employee (Harpal Singh)filed CWP No.114 of 1987 challenging the disciplinary proceedingsinitiated against him. No stay was, however, granted by this Court againstthe inquiry proceedings but passing of the final order was stayed.Meanwhile, the inquiry officer had submitted the report but no furtheraction on that basis was taken against the petitioner or those employees inwhose favour there was no interim order passed by this Court.
In sum and substance, the petitioner wanted that thedisciplinary proceedings should be finalized as he was expecting hisexoneration, which would have made him entitled to claim the arrears ofsalary during the period he remained under suspension, as alsoconsideration for further promotion.
This writ petition was filed in the year 1992. More than 16years have passed thereafter. There is every possibility that by now, thedisciplinary proceedings have come to an end and whatever consequentialbenefits might have been found due, have also been released in favour ofthe petitioner.
Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of relief sought inthis writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the Markfed totake a final decision in the disciplinary proceedings, if the same has notbeen taken so far, and if such a decision has already been taken and thepetitioner has been exonerated, to consider his claim for all theconsequential benefits including the promotion, arrears of pay, etc. as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of acertified copy of this order.
These directions shall not be taken as an expression on themerits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
December 22, 2008.kadyan
[ Surya Kant ]Judge
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…