Nirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-11001-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11001-2024 Date of Decision: May 13, 2024 Nirmal Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Sunny K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of inquiry proceedings, Annexure P-7, on the basis of the complaint bearing No.286/2023 being totally illegal, perverse and against the principles of natural justice. It is also prayed to direct the official respondent No.6 not to proceed with the fifth inquiry on the basis of complaint bearing No.286/2023 as the same is barred under the provisions of law especially when multiple inquiries have already been conducted regarding the above said aspect and the same has been consigned to record room. It is also prayed to stay the further inquiry pending before respondent No.6 on the basis of complaint bearing No.286/2023 during pendency of the present petition.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry was made against the petitioner and no substance was found in the MEENU 2024.05.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document same, however, he submits that the petitioner remained Sarpanch of the

CWP-11001-2024 -2village from 2019 to 2023. He submits that in the impugned letter written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, E.O.Wing to D.D.P.O., Tehsil Ahmedgarh, Malerkotla, record pertaining to Gram Panchayat for inquiry against the petitioner has been summoned. He has submitted that multiple inquiries are not permissible and hence the same are unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr.Navneet Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State and at the outset submits that it is only an inter departmental communication and so far nothing has been sent to the petitioner and hence, the present petition is not maintainable.

In view of the above statement made by learned State counsel, the Court finds that the present petition is premature at this stage and deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail his remedy at an appropriate stage. May 13, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.05.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document