M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the charge sheet dated 8.4.2003 (P -2) and order dated 10.7.2003 (P -4), vide which inquiry against the petitioner has been ordered to be held. According to the charge sheet the petitioner presented forged document/letter No. 142 dated 15.2.1991, purported to be issued by the Senior Executive Engineer, Rural Division, Kapurthala, whereby no objection had been expressed with regard to the transfer of the petitioner. On the basis of this forged document/letter the petitioner is alleged to have got issued order regarding his transfer from Rural Division, Kapurthala to Amar Kot from the Senior Executive Engineer, Bhikhiwind Division, vide office order No. 245, dated 22.2.1991. As a matter of fact, the case of the respondent Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity, 'the Board') is that the petitioner has never been an employee of the Board nor ever any appointment letter was issued to him by any competent authority of the Board.
(2.) The petitioner has claimed that he is an employee of the Board and his services were terminated on 3.1.1992. He raised an industrial dispute and on a reference to the Labour Court, Amritsar, it was held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not justified and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all benefits, vide award dated 4.10.1999 (P -l). He was reinstated in service on 11.3.2003. It is claimed that on the same charges a charge sheet dated 8.4.2003 (P -2) has now been issued and a fresh inquiry has been ordered vide order dated 10.7.2003. The petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet as well as the order of holding inquiry against him and respondent No. 3 having been appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 12.11.2003, the Enquiry Officer issued a letter to the petitioner (P -7) asking him to produce documents like original appointment letter, an affidavit attested by 1st Class Magistrate in which it was required to be stated that if the petitioner had played any fraud then he would be responsible for the same; whether he wanted the inquiry to be got conducted from respondent No. 3 -Enquiry Officer; language of the inquiry; and whether the petitioner was to conduct the inquiry himself or through a counsel. The petitioner in the reply filed on 14.11.2003 stated that Enquiry Officer was not entitled to call for production of those documents and expressed no confidence in the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) In reply to the notice to show cause the Board has taken the stand that the petitioner has never been appointed in the Board and there is no record in existence regarding his appointment as Assistant Lineman because there was no direct recruitment of Assistant Lineman at the relevant time. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to. produce any order of appointment either before the Board or before the Labour Court. A reference to some civil suit has also been made which was filed seeking reference of dispute to the Labour Court.;