High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27308/2016disposed of

Sukhdev Singh v. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board

2017-01-09Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 27308 of 2016 Date of decision: 09.01.2017 Sukhdev Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Premjhit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) The petitioner herein has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent that the representation filed on 11.03.2016 be decided as expeditiously as possible.

In brief, the petitioner herein was served with a charge-sheet on 25.08.2014 to which a reply was filed on 30.09.2014 which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to look into the charges. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges framed against him. Report by the Inquiry Officer was submitted on 26.10.2015.

Despite being exonerated, a reply was sought from the petitioner by the concerned authorities vide letter dated 23.11.2015 which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 09.12.2015, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite a reply having been furnished almost 15 months ago, no decision has been taken on Satyawan 2017.01.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 27308 of 2016 -2the said reply and the delay in taking such decision is going to affect the right of promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner has already made a representation in this regard which is Annexure P-9 on the record seeking the competent authority to expedite the decision on the said reply. Since no action has been taken thereon, the instant petition has been preferred. At this juncture, it is also prayed that the writ petition can be disposed of by giving a direction to the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner is due to retire on 31.03.2017.

Consequently, without giving any finding on the merits of the case, the respondent department is directed to consider the reply to the charge sheet and decide whether further proceedings would lie or not. Therefore, without issuing notice or calling upon the respondent-Board, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner would also have a right to be heard effectively before any final decision is taken. With the above direction the instant petition is disposed of. 09.01.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) sp JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No.

Satyawan 2017.01.10 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh