Aruna Sangwan v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-11642-2019 Date of decision 19.04.2022 ARUNA SANGWAN

...Petitioner

V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, For the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Midda, Additional A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vaidaant Arora, Advocate, For respondent No.6.

*** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to transfer respondent No.6 to any non-sensitive post outside the district Gurugram during pendency of proceedings arising out of her complaint resulting in registration of an FIR bearing No.0007 dated 25.01.2019, under Sections 354-A, 506 IPC, at Women Police Station, West Gurugram and with a further prayer to initiate the departmental inquiry against respondent No.6.

2.

Petitioner while serving as State Public Information Officer in the office of respondent No.6 i.e. Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, allegedly did supply part information, leading to first appeal (under Right to Information Act) before respondent No.6 (Appellate Authority). On 25.07.2017 during proceedings of the first appeal being conducted by respondent No.6, he became furious and threw file on the petitioner. VANDANA 2022.04.20 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Resultantly, petitioner felt humiliated and harassed. That apart, petitioner later also alleged that respondent No.6 in connivance with the other officers had misappropriated funds and submitted a representation/complaint dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure P-6) but same was not adverted. Hence, the instant petition.

3.

Learned State counsel, at the outset, points out that during pendency of the writ proceedings not only respondent No.6 but even petitioner has been transferred from the current place of posting. 4.

I am of the view that, in view of the aforesaid statement, on that short premise alone, no further parallel proceedings before this court are warranted.

5.

Even otherwise, while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 03.05.2019 this Court had directed that respondent No.6 will not handle the work-related to the file pertaining to the petitioner. 6.

As regards the other grievance of petitioner, without commenting on the merits thereof, the competent authority to look into the pending representation (P/6) and if warranted and deemed appropriate, proceedfurther in accordance with law.

7.

Disposed of accordingly.

19.04.2022 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VANDANA 2022.04.20 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.