Manjit Singh v. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ORS

C. W. P. No. 5391 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 120 Case No. : C. W. P. No. 5391 of 2015 Date of Decision : March 23, 2015 Manjit Singh ....

Petitioner Vs.

The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Additional Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as - the Corporation), vide which two increments of his have been stopped with cumulative effect.

The present petition challenges an order dated 13.03.2012, which was passed over three years ago. A perusal of the writ petition shows MONIKA 2015.03.27 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

C. W. P. No. 5391 of 2015 2 no justification whatsoever for approaching this Court through the present writ petition after over three years.

Even otherwise, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for causing pecuniary loss to the respondent Corporation, as also for using filthy and abusive language qua his seniors, while doing his duty. The record further reveals that before passing the punishment order in the case of the petitioner, he was subjected to a regular departmental inquiry, in which the charges levelled against him stood proved. The punishing Authority, while accepting the inquiry report, had awarded to the petitioner punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. On appeal, through the impugned order, which is well reasoned, taking a lenient view, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

A perusal of the order reveals that the petitioner had admitted to have used filthy words to a superior and impugned order further shows that the petitioner had actually caused financial loss to the respondent Corporation. In view of the above, on the ground of delay and laches, as also on merits, I am disinclined to interfere in the present writ petition and resultantly, order the dismissal of the same with no order as to costs. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE March 23, 2015 monika MONIKA 2015.03.