CWP Nos. 13333 of 2015, 3112 of 2015 (O&M), 4082, 4083, 9330, 12246, 12248, 12490, 12647, 13861 and 15170 of 2015. Case: Gurmeet Singh Randhawa and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP Nos. 13333 of 2015, 3112 of 2015 (O&M), 4082, 4083, 9330, 12246, 12248, 12490, 12647, 13861 and 15170 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate and R.P.S. Bara, Advocate |
| Judges | Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2015 (4) SCT 437 (P&H) |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.
-
This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 13333, 3112, 4082, 4083, 9330, 12246, 12248, 12490, 12647, 13861 & 15170 of 2015, involving common questions of law and facts. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No. 13333 of 2015 titled Gurmeet Singh Randhawa v. State of Punjab & others. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure P12) whereby the petitioner's second extension in service has been curtailed on account of the registration of two CBI cases against him and the filing of chargesheet. Accordingly, in view of the instructions of the Government dated 08.10.2012 and 20.09.2013, on account of the pendency of the chargesheet, the second extension in service of the petitioner was curtailed from 31.08.2015, vide impugned order. The challenge in the present writ petition is based on the ground that the order was passed without prior notice or opportunity of hearing and just 60 days prior to his completion of extension and that sanction had not been given by the competent authority and the charges framed by the CBI Court had been stayed by the Apex Court. The Government had taken a conscious decision to grant him extension despite the pendency of the FIR and the cancellation of his extension in service would entail civil consequences.
-
The State, in its reply, has relied upon the instructions dated 30.10.2014, 07.01.2015, 23.01.2015 and 30.04.2015. It was averred that the charges had been framed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala on 15.05.2004 but the Apex Court had stayed the proceedings on 13.07.2012. In the second case also, the CBI had filed charge sheet against the petitioner and further proceedings had been stayed by the Apex Court on 14.07.2006. Plea taken was that the petitioner had no right to continue in service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation and the extension was a mere concession and could be unilaterally withdrawn, in public interest. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in CWP No. 3847 of 2015 titled Iqbal Mohammad v. State of Punjab & others, decided on 24.04.2015, whereby this Court had held that extension was a mere concession and could be curtailed, without grant of opportunity of hearing. Resultant, the impugned order was passed, keeping in view the above said instructions.
-
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner (in CWP No. 13333 of 2015) had vehemently argued that the extension was not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial