Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was working as Medical Officer in the State of Punjab, was charged sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Subsequent to the departmental enquiry having been conducted against the petitioner, an order of dismissal of services of the petitioner was passed by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab on 13.9.2004.
(2.) THE said order was challenged by the petitioner in a Civil Writ Petition before this Court. The order of dismissal of services of the petitioner was set -aside by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2006 as the report of the Punjab Public Service Commission was not supplied to the petitioner which has been used in the impugned order passed against him. After passing of the order, liberty was given to the respondents to follow the due procedure and to pass afresh order in accordance with law. In terms of the liberty granted, the respondents have passed an order dated 7.10.2007, which has been appended with the reply as Annexure R -1. In the affidavit filed, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has been supplied the copy of the approval letter of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and offered him opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the order of punishment has been issued after following the proper procedure and the delay in issuing the speaking order was a procedural delay and it was neither intentional nor willful.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 7.10.2007 has been produced alongwith the reply which is dated 8.10.2007. The said order has not been communicated to the petitioner so far, which shows the malafides of the disciplinary authority. It is also contended that once the order of dismissal has been set aside by this Court, the legal effect is that the petitioner is deemed to be reinstated in service and as consequence thereof, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages as well as salary till date of superannuation. Reliance is placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as "Ram Niwas Bansal v. State bank of Patiala, 2002(2) R.S.J. 271 (F.B.)". It is also argued that the order dated 7.10.2007 could not have been passed as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2007.;