M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) BY means of this judgment, Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 3226-M, 2035-M and 2037-M of 1986 shall stand disposed of.
(2.) THESE are in a way connected mattes. The Union of India through the Accountant General, Punjab, and Comptroller and Auditor General of India, as joint plaintiffs, filed a suit on 30.6.1983 before the Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, for permanent injunction against 26 employees of the office of the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful working of the Accountant General, Punjab's office, at Chandigarh and further restraining them from raising slogans within the office premises of the plaintiff's office situated at Section 17 in Chandigarh and further restraining the defendants from demonstrating within the 250 yards from the office buildings of the plaintiffs and raising slogans etc. The suit was entertained. Rajinder Singh, respondent in Criminal Misc. No. 3226-M of 1986, was defendant No. 24 in that suit. He filed a written statement refuting all the allegations in the plaint. Besides that, he filed an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court claiming that the plaint filed by the plaintiffs was a false and forged document because, if rubbed against the charges submitted against him before the Departmental Enquiry Officer, it would be found so. On that application the trial judge, summoned the Accountant General, Punjab, the signatory of the plaint and the Senior Deputy Advocate General who had signed the charge-sheet against the said defendant-respondent. To support his allegations in the application Rajinder Singh filed another application before the trial Judge requiring him to have the departmental file. When the departmental file came, he claimed that the departmental file itself had been forged and thus prayed or summoning of these other persons, namely, H.S. Grover, B.S. Sandhu and V.M. Narula H.S. Grover, one of those, being aggrieved against the summoning order has approached him Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) ON the other hand, Jagdish Singh Tanwar, a senior Auditor under suspension, filed a civil suit on 5.9.1985 in the same Court against the Union of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Accountant General of Punjab at Chandigarh and Satish Loomba and Ram Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. 2035-M and 2037-M of 1986 respectively) of mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to initiate any action including proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry and subsequent action on the basis of the charge sheet dated 29.9.1984. Ancillary reliefs were also sought in the plaint. Written statements were filed Jagdish Singh Tanwar dubbed them false and forted. He thus made an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Judge, claiming that an enquiry be held against Ram Singh and Satish Loomba (petitioners) and others. The trial Court summoned them Aggrieved against the aforesaid action, Ram Singh and Satish Loomba, petitioners, are in this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Nos. 2035-M and 2037 of 1986 respectively.;