Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Affirms Authority’s Decision to Order Fresh Inquiry

Share:
senior bail finger bail public accused 202 Voter Tenant Imagination Constitutional Law landlord 90 rti Punishment jails cheque compromise medical injury station evidence ada motor employee Right Punjab evidence wife penalty Punjab suicide 1 students vamendment la nd 44 fir suit interim consideration evidence property food financialfinancial Gram ginder wife order 202 natural DEMARCATION Property

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a chargesheet and dismissal order in the case of Sawran Singh versus State of Punjab and another. Justice Pankaj Jain, presiding over the case, upheld the authority’s decision to order a fresh inquiry after the petitioner raised concerns about fairness during the initial proceedings.

Justice Jain stated in the judgment, “The authority acted in accordance with the regulations by ordering a fresh inquiry when the petitioner raised concerns about fairness. The right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is an essential part of the reasonable opportunity of defending oneself.”

The petitioner, who was employed as a Clerk with the respondent Board, had been served with a chargesheet on July 30, 1990. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty, leading to the issuance of a dismissal order. However, the petitioner alleged that he was not dealt with fairly during the inquiry and pleaded innocence.

After considering the petitioner’s concerns, the authority opted to withdraw the show cause notice and ordered a fresh inquiry. Despite being aware of the proceedings, the petitioner deliberately chose not to participate in the second inquiry. Consequently, the authority dismissed the petitioner from services based on the fresh inquiry report.

The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond to the findings of the inquiry officer before the authority made its own conclusions. Justice Jain added, “Denial of this right would be a denial of fair opportunity and natural justice.”

The judgment cited legal precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakaran, to support the conclusion that the authority’s action was in line with the principles of natural justice.

Date of decision : 11.05.2023

Sawran Singh   vs State of Punjab and another

Download Judgment

Share: