High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 03 P&H CK 0169

Bijender Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ranjan Gogoi, C.J · Mahesh Grover, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 1289 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 279 words

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.—This writ petition filed in public interest seeks a direction from the Court for initiation of an inquiry in the Guest Teachers scam and JRC fund misuse scam wherein the respondent No. 4 is alleged to be involved. Proper departmental action and imposition of appropriate penalty against the said respondent are the additional reliefs sought for in the writ petition. While the writ petition remained pending, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated and concluded against respondent No.4 wherein she has been found guilty of the charges levelled. Thereafter, an order dated 16.3.2012 has been passed imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and recovery of Rs. 4,28,190/- from the retiral benefits of the respondent No. 4. The said order dated 16.3.2012 has been brought on record by means of an affidavit of the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, School Education Department which has been filed in Court today. We have noticed that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed at the level of the Chief Minister to whom the file was put up though the departmental Secretary had proposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

2.

As the departmental proceeding against the respondent No. 4 has not only been initiated but the same has already been concluded by imposition of the penalty referred to hereinabove, nothing survives for our consideration in this writ petition.

3.

The petition accordingly stands closed. Needless to say that it will be open to the respondent No. 4, if she is so advised and if she so chooses, to challenge the order dated 16.3.2012 in an appropriate manner and before an appropriate forum.