Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-11103-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4897 (27 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.11103 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:July 24, 2006

Balbir Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON

PRESENT: Shri Amninder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Notice of motion to the respondents.

On the asking of Court, Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

The grievance made by the petitioner is that although a complaint made by him against respondents No.5 and 6 was being enquired into by respondent No.4, Executive Engineer, Canal Lining Area Division, Patiala but the aforesaid Enquiry Officer in connivance with respondents No.5 and 6 has recorded incorrect proceedings and has reflected that the said complaint made by the petitioner had been withdrawn by him. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, at no stage, had withdrawn the said complaint and as such the Enquiry Officer was required to enquire into the said complaint.

Without commenting upon the various pleas raised by the petitioner in the present petition, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Chief Engineer(Vigilance), Canal and Drainage Department, Punjab, respondent No.2 to look into the grievance made by the petitioner.

For this purpose, the petitioner shall be required to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the Chief Engineer (Vigilance), Punjab, respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by appending all the relevant documents. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, respondent No.2 shall look into the matter and take up such appropriate proceedings, as may be required within a period of three months thereafter.

Before parting with this order, we make it clear that the present directions issued by this Court shall not be considered to mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 24,2006 (S.S. Saron)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.