Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmohan Singh Walia vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 3 December, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013 (O&M)
Reserved on : 05.10.2013
Date of decision: 03.12.2013
Manmohan Singh Walia
....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Argued by: -
Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Ranvir Singh Mander, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Ashu Punchhi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) and 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which the application dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 for complying with the order dated 12.01.2008 and on its failure to strike off the defence under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, has been dismissed as well as the application dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P- Singh Ravinder 2013.12.09 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013
7) for directing respondent No.2 to produce the remaining record as per order dated 12.01.2008 to enable the petitioner/plaintiff to file replication, has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration that order dated 17.03.2003 passed by respondent/defendant No.1, imposing penalty of dismissal of the petitioner/plaintiff from service on the recommendation of respondent/defendant No.2, is illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and also for direction to reinstate him and release all the pecuniary benefits with interest, including proforma promotion etc. In the suit petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for issuing directions to defendant No.2 for complying with the order dated 12.01.2008. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2013 by observing that the documents mentioned in the application are privileged documents and same cannot be given to the plaintiff. Thereafter, petitioner remained silent and the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner by observing that enquiry file is confidential and privileged document and the same cannot be supplied to the plaintiff when the defendants are alleging the same to be the privileged and confidential documents and during the trial if they fail to establish their plea regarding documents then defendants will suffer the consequences of taking the said plea. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to prove the said documents that these are not covered under the privileged and confidential documents.
Singh Ravinder 2013.12.09 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was a judicial officer and was dismissed from service on 17.03.2003. Thereafter suit was filed for declaration that imposing of penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. A sub-committee was appointed to consider the enquiry report but no document has been brought on record in spite of specific application by the petitioner. This is against the Order 8 Rule 8-A CPC. There is complete non-compliance of order dated 12.01.2008 (Annexure P-4) whereby direction was issued to produce the enquiry report. Subsequent order on the application of the petitioner for producing the entire enquiry file has also been erroneously passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. No privilege can be claimed in resepct of those documents. Reference was also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493, specifically para Nos.12, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25 and 26.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that entire enquiry report has been submitted from page No.1 to 671. The petitioner is asking for production of documents relating to appointment of sub-committee, proceedings and report of the sub- Singh Ravinder 2013.12.09 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013 committee and its consideration by the Full Court. The matter was put up before the Full Court. The Full Court approved the recommendations for dismissal of the petitioner in pursuance of the enquiry. The sub- committee is only for preparing brief notes before putting up the matter before the Full Court. The enquiry was conducted after associating the petitioner and enquiry report has also been supplied to the petitioner. The entire enquiry file is on record of the trial court. The proceedings before the Full Court are administrative in nature and are privileged documents. Petitioner cannot be associated in those proceedings nor contents can be shown to the petitioner; as such the application has rightly been rejected by the trial court.
From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, following issues arise: -
"1. Whether enquiry file has already been placed on record of the court as ordered vide order dated
12.01.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh?
2. Whether report of the sub-committee appointed by the High Court in pursuance of the Full Court proceedings and report of the sub-committee are part of the enquiry file?
Admittedly, enquiry is conducted by the enquiring authority. As per Article 235 of the Constitution of India control over the subordinate Courts vests in the High Court. High Court is not an enquiring authority rather is a disciplinary authority which passes independent orders taking into consideration the enquiry report. Any Singh Ravinder 2013.12.09 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- Civil Revision No.5298 of 2013 sub-committee appointed by the Full Court for its own convenience on the administrative side has nothing to do with the enquiry file. Since enquiry file has already been placed on record, the order dated 12.01.2008 stands complied with. Since I have come to the conclusion that entire enquiry file has been placed on record, the order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) have become redundant and no order on merits is required to be passed as these orders have merged into this order.
No question of striking off the defence arises as the compliance of order dated 12.01.2008 has been made by placing on record the enquiry file. The constitution of sub-committee and proceedings of Full Court are not part of enquiry.
In view of this, present revision petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner still wants some documents, he will be at liberty to seek those documents under the Right to Information Act in view of judgment of this Court in CWP No. 7343 of 2010 titled 'Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar (Rules) vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and another' decided on 26.04.2010.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge December 03, 2013 R.S. Singh Ravinder 2013.12.09 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh