Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navtej Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 4 July, 2023
{2023:PHHC:083913}
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-15910-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.07.2023
NAVTEJ SINGH ........Petitioner
V/s.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for the issuance of
a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.06.2016
endorsed on 06.07.2016 (Annexure P-8) vide which the departmental enquiry
has been started against the petitioner.
2. The short point involved in the present case is that whether the
respondents could have passed the impugned order dated 06.07.2016 for
initiating the departmental enquiry afresh against the petitioner after the Civil
Court, in an Appeal preferred by the respondents, allowed them to conduct
enquiry afresh within 60 days vide its judgment dated 28.08.2015
(Annexure P-4) and the 60 days' period had expired before passing of the
impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
respondents did not seek extension of time of the said period of 60 days from
the Civil Court, they were not empowered to initiate the fresh enquiry in
SURESH KUMAR
2023.07.06 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
{2023:PHHC:083913}
relation to the dispute which had been challenged by the petitioner by filing
the Civil Suit.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner had challenged the
departmental enquiry proceedings as well as the punishment order of the
compulsory retirement awarded to him by filing a Suit before the competent
Court. The competent Court decreed the suit favour of the petitioner and
quashed the proceedings as well as the punishment order and directed the
petitioner to be reinstated. However, while deciding all the issues in favour of
the petitioner, it further observed that respondents would be free to initiate
departmental enquiry proceedings afresh within a period 60 days vide its
judgment dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-6). Against the said judgment, the
department preferred first Appeal before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Chandigarh but vide his judgment dated 09.02.2016 upheld the
judgment decree passed by the Court below and further observed that
respondents (appellants therein) would be free to conduct a fresh enquiry, if
they so desire, within 60 days from that day. As the judgment was
pronounced on 09.02.2016, the time limitation for conducting a fresh enquiry
ended on 08.04.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 08.04.2016,
the respondents did not have the authority to conduct a fresh enquiry and the
order dated 06.07.2016 is, therefore, bad in law.
6. Learned State counsel has urged in reply that the order passed by
the Civil Court was examined and after considering all the aspects, approval
was granted to initiate a fresh enquiry and the time taken in initiating fresh
enquiry deserves to be condoned. Additional affidavit has also been filed on
SURESH KUMAR
2023.07.06 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
{2023:PHHC:083913}
their behalf and it is stated that in compliance, the petitioner was reinstated
and thereafter, the matter was referred for the legal opinion.
7. On the receipt of the legal advice, fresh enquiry was ordered by
the respondents on 02.05.2016. Accordingly, the competent authority issued
orders after the same were approved and drafted on 22.06.2016.
8. It is stated that there was no intentional delay and the petitioner
cannot take advantage of the said delay.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
10. This Court vide its order dated 19.08.2016, while issuing notice,
directed the Inquiry Officer not to proceed with the enquiry till the next date
of hearing. From the perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that the said
interim order has continued till date and in view thereof, the enquiry could
not be started.
11. It has also come on record that the petitioner, during the
pendency of this Writ Petition, has attained superannuation on 31.03.2017
and he has also been given pension only but other retiral benefits are yet to be
released.
12. This Court is of the view that the judgment and decree is
required to be implemented in the same terms as they are passed. There can
neither be any addition nor subtraction in the contents of the decree. Any
violation or diversion from the decree can only be made on
corrections/alterations being made by the concerned Court on filing of the
review petition or revision/modification. Since, the respondents have not
filed any review or moved any application under Section 151 CPC for
SURESH KUMAR
2023.07.06 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
{2023:PHHC:083913}
seeking amendment in the decree, the contention of the respondents that the
delay may be condoned or waived is not liable to be accepted and the same is
rejected accordingly.
13. The order passed by the respondents for initiating departmental
enquiry afresh dated 06.07.2016 falls beyond limitation period of 60 days in
terms of the decree and is in violation thereto. Accordingly, the same cannot
be sustained and the same is set aside.
14. The petitioner would get all consequential benefits of
reinstatement and continuity of service upon his retirement. He would also be
entitled to other retiral benefits if the same have not been released to him.
15. The delay in making payments relating to retiral benefits also
attract interest @6% per annum and shall be released within three months
from today.
16. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly.
17. No costs.
July 4, 2023 [ SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
SURESH KUMAR
2023.07.06 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
