Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was working as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department was sent on deputation in the Punjab State Tube -wall Corporation on 6.6.1997. Presently he is working as Divisional Engineer (planning) Punjab State Tube -wall Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). He has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Bureau) - respondent No. 2 ordering de novo vigilance enquiry against him vide order dated 11.3.1998 Annexure P -3.
(2.) THE petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned order of the respondent for initiating de novo enquiry against him, avers that his entire record throughout has been very good. He has posted as Sub Divisional Engineer in Junior Sub -Division of Mansa. A vigilance enquiry bearing R.E. No. 1/89 was registered against him in order to probe the allegation of disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income. In the said inquiry, a list of all the known sources of income were thoroughly investigated and a list of all the assets of the petitioner and his family members was also drawn up. This inquiry continued for three years. The Chief Director, Vigilance, submitted the enquiry report to the Government wherein it was recommended that the enquiry against him be dropped. Accordingly, the Government took a decision Annexure P -1 dated August 30, 1991. In April 1996, respondent No. 2 registered another enquiry being enquiry R.E. No. 4/96 Mansa against the petitioner on the same allegations. This enquiry was also dropped on 21.2.1997 Annexure P -2. The petitioner who has met the Chief Director (Vigilance Bureau) and informed him of the mental torture being caused to him by callous attitude of the respondents, was assured by the Chief Director that in future no further harassment would be caused to him on account of enquiry on the same allegations. However, to his utter dismay, he received another letter dated March 11, 1998. Annexure P -3, requiring him to appear in the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Bathinda -respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the earlier enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa, which already stood dropped vide letter Annexure P -2. He did not appear in the office of respondent No. 2. Instead, he made a detailed representation dated March 17, 1998 Annexure P -4. So far no action has been taken by the Department upon his representation. Hence, this writ petition against the action of the respondents in arbitrarily and blatantly reopening the enquiry proceedings for the third time on the same allegations, which is wholly illegal and unjust.
(3.) THE respondents admit the factum of initiation of enquiries against the petitioner as above and that in enquiry No. 1/89, registered against him, the income and expenditure of the petitioner during the period from 1.5.1987 to 31.5.1988 was checked and official report was submitted by the Vigilance Bureau. It is pleaded. inter alia, that he was held responsible for not getting approval of the land before selling it and the Vigilance Department had been asked to take departmental action against him. It is also pleaded that regular enquiry No. 4/96 was registered on 12.4.1996 against the petitioner. But the Vigilance Bureau is still conducting the enquiry. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, has not submitted the enquiry report so far. The Government vide its letter dated 22.4.1997 closed the enquiry at its own level without waiting for the enquiry report of the Vigilance Bureau. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has requested that some more time may be given to him to complete the enquiry. The letter of the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau was examined and it was felt that the matter was closed at the Government level without waiting for the enquiry report. The Government vide its letter dated 22.4.1997 allowed the extension of time to complete the enquiry No. 4/96 -Mansa. The report of the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has not been received. On those averments, it is prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed.;