High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11395/2020dismissed

Bikramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2021-01-21Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 204) CWP no.11395 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2021 Bikramjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Pardeep Singh Bajwa, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the review-applicant-State.

Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the non-applicant-petitoenr.

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by video conferencing.

This review application has been filed by the State of Punjab qua the order of this court dated 23.09.2020 in CWP no.11395 of 2020, with that order, as also the orders passed thereafter in that writ petition, reading as follows:- Order passed on 23.09.2020:- "

! "# $"$"% &'() "$ "

$"$"%

* +,%' -

'*+%+, % .

% ! "# $"$"

* +,% / "$% #"& +0% 1&) )%

2 *

% 3

* +,% ' -

, !"

$"$" Order passed on 30.10.2020:- "All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

On 31.08.2020, the following order had been passed (reproducing therein the order dated 07.08.2020):- 4

(52' ( "6 "# $"$"% 7 4

% 9 9 : $"

$" &+6); % 9 9

"< "0 $" & +#) %= $1 "1 $" &+ )%

"$ $"$"&+") $# "0 $"$"&+)> - 4 ?

: +0%

% -

- / %$" % / % $"$"% %

A % *% +,%

$% - , ! "# $"$"

2 %

? .

% % : * , $!

$"$"

2 %

? Thereafter, on 23.09.2020, with no reply having been filed on behalf of the State, it was directed that in terms of the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, on July 02, 1980 (copy Annexure P-14), the petitioner be reinstated in service with immediate effect. Though a reply dated 01.10.2020 is on record, the order dated 23.09.2020 has not been complied with, thereby with the respondents being in contempt of the said order. Mr. Bajwa submits that as a matter of fact an application seeking modification of the said order had been sent to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, this month but an objection having been raised, it could not be filed on time.

- Even if that is so, very obviously with the order dated 23.09.2020 having been uploaded on the website of this court on 26.09.2020, at least one month went by without implementation of that order, and with no application even attempted to be filed seeking any modification thereof. Be that as it may, in view of what has been contended by Mr. Bajwa as regards the merits of the case (with him referring to the reply filed by the respondents), presently at least no notice is being issued to any of the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but if no application is filed within a week seeking modification of the order, giving therein a detailed explanation as to why the order was not implemented and why no such application was filed within a reasonable time, this court will have no choice but to issue notice of contempt to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home.

Adjourned to 09.11.2020.

In the meanwhile the decision taken on the appeal filed by the petitioner against his suspension order be also placed on record; and since learned State counsel has informed this court that with the petitioner was served with a second chargesheet issued on 02.03.2020, the decision on whether he has been considered to be under suspension in the context of that chargesheet also or not, shall also be placed on record with the affidavit of the Addl. Chief Secretary. At this stage, Mr. Arora submits that two other officials, namely Charanjit Sharma, SSP and Pradeep Singh, Inspector, who were also initially arraigned as accused in the same FIR, have also been reinstated.

Naturally, the reply to be filed by the Addl. Chief Secretary will take into consideration that aspect also." Order passed on November 09, 2020:-

- " 3 $!

$"$"

2 .

% % - %

, , "6 $ $"$"

Order passed on December 18, 2020:- 4

(52' .

% % , $ " $"$ .

% $!

$"$"% ?

Thereafter, two affidavits of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home, have been filed (dated 03.11.2020 and 14.12.2020), by the first of which he tenders an apology for the order of this court not having been implemented and in fact seemingly a deliberate contempt having been committed, which however Mr. Bajwa submits was wholly unintentional and it is stated that during the pendency of this review application a misconception arose in the mind of the person concerned.

With the aforesaid explanation given the apology is accepted, with therefore no need arising in the mind of this court to issue any notice under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As regards the order challenged in the accompanying writ petition itself, Mr. Bajwa submits that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of suspension dated 20.03.2019 (by which his services were suspended) has been decided by the Government vide an order dated 20.11.2020.

That being so, Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the non-applicant (petitioner in the petition) submits that the petitioner would like to withdraw the petition itself, with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging therein the aforesaid order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. That being so, the accompanying petition is ordered to be dismissed (as withdrawn) with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2020, as also the orders impugned in the accompanying writ petition itself, with any such petition naturally to be considered wholly on its own merit after it is listed as per roster, with any observation made by this court in the present petition/application to not hamper either side as regards the merits of the contentions to be raised in that petition (if filed).

It is also clarified that since the order of suspension as was subject matter of the present writ petition has now also been confirmed in the order passed in appeal, both orders would need to be considered on merits in any petition filed by the petitioner, and therefore even the order passed by this court as is subject matter of the review application, would not

hamper either the petitioner or the respondent State, in raising their arguments qua both orders; i.e. the one suspending the services of the petitioner and the order passed in the appeal thereafter. The writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn as aforesaid and in view of what has been observed hereinabove, the review application is rendered infructuous, as no order passed in the present petition would come in the way of either the petitioner or the State to raise arguments as per their respective stands, qua the orders impugned in the present petition.

21.01.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable: