Vikram Jangra v. Union Territory Chandigarh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-28503-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 23.09.2025 VIKRAM JANGRA . .Petitioner

Versus

UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents-UT.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present case, the challenge has been made to the order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby, interim prayer made by the petitioner for changing Inquiry Officer has been rejected. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Stenotypist in Post Graduate Government College, Sector-11, Chandigarh since 12.04.2017 wherein he was prosecuted under Sections 419, 420, 511 of IPC by an FIR No. 300 dated 10.07.2019 registered against him following which he was placed under suspension and department enquiry was initiated against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

CWP-28503-2025 (O&M) evidence has been closed by the enquiry officer on 09.09.2025 and the petitioner has not been able to cross examine the witnesses, namely, Rajesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar who are examined on the said date i.e. 09.09.2025, hence, petitioner will be satisfied in case petitioner is allowed to cross examine the witnesses examined on 09.09.2025. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-UT and submits that though, due opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses namely, Rajesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar but the petitioner did not do the same and as the department concerned is not against the petitioner, hence, in case, he can successfully defend the allegations levelled against him by cross examining the said witnesses, hence, as a matter of indulgence that the only grievance pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that two witnesses namely, Rajesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar may kindly be allowed to be cross-examined, the said two witnesses namely, Rajesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar will be recalled by the enquiry officer and the due opportunity will be given to the petitioner to cross examine them. In case, the said crossexamination, if conducted, the same will be taken into account while deciding the issue qua the allegations raised against the petitioner. 5.

Keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents recorded herein above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is disposed of having been not pressed any further.

6.

Ordered accordingly.

CWP-28503-2025 (O&M) 7.

Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 23.09.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No