R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Public Health, (RWS), Sub-Division, Jalandhar, in September, 1980 was placed under suspension along with four other officials as a departmental enquiry under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 (hereinafter called the rules), was contemplated against them. The other officials who, were placed under suspension, were:- Shri B.C. Sarmal, Executive Engineer, Public Health (RWS) Division, Jalandhar. Shri Sodhi Ram, Sub Divisional Head Draftsman, Public Health (RWS) Sub- Division, Jalandhar. Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent Grade-IV, Public Health (RWS) Sub- Division, Jalandhar. Shri Baldev Singh, SDC Public Health (RWS) Sub-Division, Jalandhar. Sh. Basant Singh Bhatia, Public Health (RWS) Sub Division, Jalandhar. Vide letter dated 19.12.1988, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under rule 8 of the rules. The petitioner filed reply thereto but the same having been found unsatisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Public Works, passed order on 9.11.1990, (Annexure P-8), dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect.
(2.) It may be observed here that similar orders of dismissal were passed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Public Works, against the other delinquent officers whose names have already been mentioned above. Baldev Singh S.D.C. who had been dismissed by order dated 9.11.1990 filed a writ petition in this court (CWP No. 15063 of 1990) but the same was dismissed as premature on 26.11.1990 by passing the following order:- "The petitioner is premature. Against the order of dismissal under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1970, a statutory appeal has been provided. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail that remedy. Dismissed as premature." It seems that since the order of dismissal against Shri Baldev Singh had been passed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Public Works Department, no appeal as such under the rules lay before the said authority. Therefore, a review application under rule 21 of the rules was filed by Baldev Singh against the dismissal order. The said review application was dismissed by the then Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Public Works, vide order dated 16.7.1991. Said Baldev Singh again approached this court by filing another writ petition (CWP No. 13585 of 1991). The said writ petition was allowed on January 21, 1992, and the impugned order dated 16.7.1991 was quashed on the ground that the said order was a non-speaking order and it was directed that the matter be considered afresh and a speaking order be passed. Learned counsel for the petition has brought to my notice the order passed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Public Works, dated 31st July, 1992, whereby the review application of said Baldev Singh has been allowed and the order of dismissal has been set aside ordering his reinstatement.
(3.) Similar are the facts regarding Basant Singh Bhatia and Amrik Singh, whose review applications have also been allowed by the Secretary to Punjab Government, Department of Public Works, and they have been ordered to be reinstated. It has further been stated at the bar that Shri B.C. Sarmal, Executive Engineer and Shri Sodhi Ram have challenged their dismissal by way of civil suits which are pending. The petitioner in the present case did not file any appeal/review application before the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Public Works, but challenged the order of his dismissal Annexure P-8 without exhausting that remedy by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that let the petitioner also follow the same course as was followed by the above-said Sarvshri Baldev Singh, Basant Singh and Amrik Singh. He further stated that if a petition under rule 21 of the rules is filed against the dismissal order by the petitioner within three weeks from today the objection regarding limitation would not be taken and the petition would be decided on merits. The petitioner's counsel, however, urges that in fact this case deserves to be allowed on the ground that dismissal order was passed on 9.11.1990 and endorsed on 15.11.1990 and was received by the petitioner on 24th November, 1990, and since admittedly copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner before passing the dismissal order the same is liable to be set aside in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991(1) SCT 111 (SC) : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 471. He further urges that on similar facts, the review applications of three other persons, mentioned above, already stand allowed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Public Works, and they have been ordered to be reinstated.;