IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009
Date of Decision: 21.07.2009
Jarnail Singh
Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.
Petitioner retired as a Superintendent Grade-I from the office of
Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. He has filed this writ petition with a
prayer that directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold enquiry
against respondent Nos.3 to 9, for not performing duties, imposed upon
them under the law.
It is necessary to mention here that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are
the former Deputy Commissioners of district Ferozepur, respondent No.6 is
the present incumbent, respondent No.7 is the former District and
Development Panchayat Officer, Ferozepur and respondent No.8 is the
former Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. Respondent No.9 is
the Punjab Human Rights Commission at Chandigarh.
Petitioner started fighting with his neighbour in the year 2003
when he moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur that
projection raised on house of his neighbour Amrik Singh be removed. It
was his averment that the projection in question causes lot of inconvenience
in the movements of tractor and trolley on the street in the village. His
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 2
complaint was looked into at various levels. BDPO Ferozepur reported that
regarding removal of projection over the house, Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 (in short the Act) is silent. His report was endorsed by SDM
Ferozepur, however, DDPO and Deputy Commissioners were of the opinion
that the projection raised would amount to encroachment as defined under
the Act. When no action was taken, the petitioner went to the Deputy
Commissioner in the year 2005 and then to the Commissioner. In his
representation to the Commissioner, he leveled allegations against the then
DDPO and other officers, by stating that they had forged noting sheets. It
appears that respondent No.6, on receipt of petitioner’s complaint from the
office of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, conducted an
enquiry and submitted his report on 14.2.2006. Against report made by
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, the petitioner sent a
complaint to the Chief Minister in the month June 2006. His complaint was
down marked to the office of Commissioner, who instituted an enquiry
through SDM Zira, in the allegations leveled by the petitioner. Report of
the enquiry was submitted on 5.10.2006. The petitioner again was not
satisfied. Then he made a complaint against the officer concerned and his
neighbour, to the Commissioner in the Month of June 2007. Enquiry was
marked to the then Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.5, who made his
report on 31.1.2007 and 11.6.2007. This report also was not to the
satisfaction of the petitioner. The petitioner again made a complaint in the
month of January 2008 with a grievance that office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Ferozepur had not made recommendation to the government
through Rural Department for making an amendment in the Act, for removal
of projection. Again enquiry was marked to Sh.Jas Karan Singh, PCS
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 3
Additional Commissioner Ferozepur. His report also failed to satisfy the
petitioner.
At that stage, the petitioner moved a complaint to the State
Human Rights Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (respondent No.9),
which was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2008. Relevant portion of the
order reads thus:-
The matter complained of is barred by limitation by
virtue of the provision of Section 36(2) of the protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993. Hence no action on the part of the
commission is required. However the commission decides to
send copy of this complaint and the copy of the order to the
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur who may
examined the allegation according to law at his own level to
take such action and deemed necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case. A copy of the order be sent to the
complaint for information. With the aforesaid observations,
the complaint stands disposed of.”
Thereafter, it appears that the Commissioner Ferozepur referred
complaint of the petitioner, along with reports of enquiries earlier made, to
the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for investigation. At that stage, the
petitioner again moved an application before Human Rights Commission,
Punjab, stating that the Commissioner Ferozepur was not justified in
sending his complaint to the Deputy Commissioner. Complaint was
disposed of and following order was conveyed to the Commissioner
Ferozepur:-
“I am directed to refer this Commission’s letter
No.15168 dated 7.3.08 on the subject noted above and to
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 4forward herewith a copy of application dated 31.3.08 of he
complainant for taking necessary action as per order dated
28.2.08. I am further to say that the commission against direct
you to look into the matter at your own level.”
Matter was taken up by the Commissioner on some dates,
thereafter, he again transferred the complaint made by the petitioner to the
Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur vide order dated 27.3.2009. The
petitioner again moved an application before respondent No.9, which was
disposed of by the Commission, vide order dated 30.4.2009, by observing as
under:-
“Now the complainant has filed an application dated
6.4.09 alongwith enclosures. His grouse is that despite the
directions issued by the commission vide order dated
17.4.2008, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur
in the midst of the enquiry has directed the DC, Ferozepur to
start the inquiry. He alleges that the Commissioner is
disobeying the order of commission and prays that the
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur be again
directed to strictly obey the direction issued by the
Commission.
The objection raised by the complainant / applicant has
no substance. The commissioner competent to mark inquiry to
any officer he likes. The application is dismissed.”
Hence, this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that
action of the Commissioner Ferozepur, in transferring complaint filed by the
petitioner, to the Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur was not justified and
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 5
runs contrary to the order passed by respondent No.9. Counsel further
contended that once the Commissioner was asked to look into the matter
himself, it was not open to him to send complaint of the petitioner for
investigation to the Deputy Commissioner. To support his contention,
counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in S.Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2701.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that
present writ petition deserves dismissal.
Petitioner appears to be a chronic litigant and is hell-bent upon
to see that projection of house of his neighbour be demolished. As is
evident from the record, enquiries at his instance, were conducted several
times. None of the enquiry report was in his favour and he continued to
make representations to one or the other officer. Petitioner is taking benefit
of his expertise in framing the complaints, which he may have acquired
when he was working as Superintendent in the office of the Deputy
Commissioner. The petitioner has failed to show any bias at the level of
Deputy Commissioner, which may necessitate that his complaint be looked
into by the Commissioner himself. There is allegation that his neighbour is
in a position to influence the Deputy Commissioner whosoever the officer
may be. This allegation is without any basis. Order was passed by
respondent No.9 asking the Commissioner Ferozepur to look himself, into
the complaint filed by the petitioner. When his complaint was transferred to
Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner again moved an application before
respondent No.9. His application was disposed of by stating that the
objection raised by the petitioner has no substance and the Commissioner is
competent to mark enquiry to any officer, he likes. Application of the
petitioner was dismissed. In a way, action of the Commissioner Ferozepur,
Civil Writ Petition No.10742 of 2009 6
in transferring complaint of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner
Ferozepur was approved by respondent No.9. If that is so, objection raised
by the petitioner is frivolous. Judgment in the case of S.Parthasarathi
(supra) is of no help to the petitioner. That was a case where departmental
enquiry was conducted against a government servant under the Rules, to
take disciplinary action. Head of the Department was directed to conduct
enquiry himself, however, enquiry was transferred to the officer against
whom there were specific allegations. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that action of the Head of the Department was not
justified. Besides as above, bias at the hands of the officer concerned,
against the petitioner in that case, was apparent on record. So far as this
case is concerned, once respondent No.9 has approved action of the
Commissioner Ferozepur, no grievance is left with the petitioner. It appears
that the petitioner has a fancy for litigation and is in the habit of making
complaints at various levels. Such a litigant is not entitled to get any relief
under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
21.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge