CWP-10215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 131 CHAMKAUR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. Constitution of India certiorari quashing orders dated 02.11.2020 and 27.09.2024, Annexures P and P-9, respectively, 3, issued informed that there is no provision for 2. from the post of Punjabi Teacher C& he was granted an extension, but on 03.07.2017. He submits that the petitioner is a social worker and has been visiting the interested in the education as well as physical and mental children. 10215-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: CHAMKAUR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate and Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Instant petition has been filed Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 02.11.2020 and 27.09.2024, Annexures P respectively, whereby charge-sheet dated 06.06.2020, Annexure P to respondent No.6, has been dropped informed that there is no provision for de novo Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Punjabi Teacher C&V Cadre on 31.12.2016 and although he was granted an extension, but on 03.07.2017. He submits that the petitioner is a social worker and has been the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys) erested in the education as well as physical and mental children. He came to know that respondent No.6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10215-2025 Date of decision:24.07.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate and for the petitioner. Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 02.11.2020 and 27.09.2024, Annexures P sheet dated 06.06.2020, Annexure P has been dropped and petitioner has been de novo enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired V Cadre on 31.12.2016 and although he was granted an extension, but on his request, he was relieved on 03.07.2017. He submits that the petitioner is a social worker and has been Government Senior Secondary School (Boys) at Sangrur as he is erested in the education as well as physical and mental well-being e came to know that respondent No.6, a Lecturer of Physical PETITIONER ESPONDENTS under Articles 226/227 of for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 02.11.2020 and 27.09.2024, Annexures P-4 sheet dated 06.06.2020, Annexure P- and petitioner has been Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired V Cadre on 31.12.2016 and although he was relieved on 03.07.2017. He submits that the petitioner is a social worker and has been at Sangrur as he is being of Physical Sheetal 2025.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10215 Education taking classes. Counsel submits that against him the inquiry report No.6 had committed serious Annexure P Counsel submits that petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. application and vide reply sheet has been dropped vide 4. In response dated 27.09.2024 opened for a Minister, counsel for the petitioner has argued that an enquiry held into charge sheet 3. submission 4. P-3, was issued Services (Punishment and Appeal is respons School (Boys), Sangrur the attendance register have been named 10215-2025 -2- Education, is hand in glove with the Principal of the school classes. Counsel submits that the petitioner against him and an inquiry was conducted. Counsel asserts that nquiry report dated 09.01.2020, Annexure P had committed serious irregularities Annexure P-3, was issued to him and an Enquiry Officer submits that petitioner was named before the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently application and vide reply dated 17.07.2023, he sheet has been dropped vide impugned order dated 03.11.2020 response to a legal notice, petitioner was informed 27.09.2024, Annexure P-9, that charge sheet once dropped cannot be opened for a de novo trial. Leveling allegation Minister, counsel for the petitioner has argued that an enquiry irregularities by respondent No.6 and charge sheet is illegal. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions. On the basis of a preliminary 3, was issued to respondent No.6 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil ices (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970, leveling allegations that he sible for the disappointing result School (Boys), Sangrur. It has been also alleged that attendance register. Inquiry Officer alongwith his report and petitioner have been named as the two witnesses to be produced Principal of the school and has not been the petitioner submitted a complaint and an inquiry was conducted. Counsel asserts that a perusal of dated 09.01.2020, Annexure P-1, shows that respondent irregularities, a charge-sheet dated 06.06.2020 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. was named as one of the witnesses to depose Subsequently, writ petitioner filed an RTI dated 17.07.2023, he came to know that charge impugned order dated 03.11.2020, Annexure P petitioner was informed vide communication that charge sheet once dropped cannot be trial. Leveling allegation against a former Education Minister, counsel for the petitioner has argued that an enquiry deserves to be respondent No.6 and contends that dropping of I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the On the basis of a preliminary inquiry, a charge sheet, Annexure under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Rules, 1970, leveling allegations that he t of Government Senior Secondary also alleged that there is tampering in nquiry Officer alongwith his report and petitioner to be produced against him in the has not been submitted a complaint a perusal of 1, shows that respondent 06.06.2020, was appointed. as one of the witnesses to depose filed an RTI that charge , Annexure P- communication that charge sheet once dropped cannot be against a former Education deserves to be dropping of I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the nquiry, a charge sheet, Annexure under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Rules, 1970, leveling allegations that he Government Senior Secondary there is tampering in nquiry Officer alongwith his report and petitioner in the Sheetal 2025.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10215 disciplinary proceedings. impugned order dated 03.11.2020, Annexure P withdrew the list of charges. 5. interested in the welfare of the school and proceedings were initiated against respondent No.6. is a third party against respondent No.6. In 119, Supreme Court has observed that in aggrieved proceedin action. Petitioner, although, he is a complainant before the disciplinary authority an order proceedings 6. of the order sheets, petitioner has not been able to to the contrary the instant petition in exercise 7. no order as to costs 24.07.2025 sheetal 10215-2025 -3- disciplinary proceedings. An Enquiry Officer ned order dated 03.11.2020, Annexure P withdrew the list of charges. Petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming that interested in the welfare of the school and proceedings were initiated against respondent No.6. is a third party to the departmental enquiry, against respondent No.6. In R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India Supreme Court has observed that in aggrieved person to assail the legality or correctness of the ngs. A third party has no locus standi action. Petitioner, although, he is a complainant before the disciplinary authority, does not have any order passed by the competent authority dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent No.6. Despite being granted opportunities of the order sheets, petitioner has not been able to contrary. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to entertain the instant petition in exercise of its extra- Writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed no order as to costs. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No An Enquiry Officer was also appointed, but by ned order dated 03.11.2020, Annexure P-4, competent authority Petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming that he interested in the welfare of the school and on his complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No.6. Concededly, petitioner to the departmental enquiry, which was proposed to be held R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC Supreme Court has observed that in service jurisprudence it is for the or correctness of the departmen locus standi to question an administrative action. Petitioner, although, he is a complainant and a proposed witness does not have any locus standi to challenge passed by the competent authority dropping the disciplinary initiated against respondent No.6. Despite being granted opportunities, as is clear from the perusal of the order sheets, petitioner has not been able to cite any judicial precedent . This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to entertain -ordinary jurisdiction. maintainable and is dismissed, though with (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No was also appointed, but by 4, competent authority he is plinary , petitioner which was proposed to be held (1993) 4 SCC ce it is for the ntal administrative proposed witness to challenge passed by the competent authority dropping the disciplinary as is clear from the perusal any judicial precedent . This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to entertain , though with Sheetal 2025.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh