Satpal vs Punjab State Civil Supplies … on 3 September, 2009

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.

                                                  C.W.P. No. 13567 of 2009
                                        DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009

Satpal

                                                           .... PETITIONER
                                  Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) and others

                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner, who at present is posted as Inspector Grade-II at

PUNSUP Center, Sanaur, District Patiala, has filed the instant petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to respondent

No.3 to consider and decide his stay application against the order dated

22.5.2009, passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent No.2 herein).

It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 22.5.2009,

the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of three annual

increments with cumulative effect and ordered for recovery of an amount of

Rs. 95,27,102/- from the petitioner. The petitioner has filed appeal against

the said order before the Chairman -cum- Appellate Authority, PUNSUP

(respondent No.3 herein) on 2.7.2009. Along with the said appeal,
CWP No. 13567 of 2009 -2-

the petitioner has also filed an application for staying the operation of the

order dated 22.5.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that in his appeal as

well as the application, the Appellate Authority has not fixed any date of

hearing, and on the other hand, the department has started effecting

recovery of the aforesaid amount in monthly instalments from the salary of

the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the one hand,

the Appellate Authority is not considering the stay application filed by the

petitioner and on the other hand, recovery is being effected from his salary.

In view of these facts, learned counsel submits that at this stage, this

petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority –

respondent No.3 to consider and decide the stay application filed by the

petitioner in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice

of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed

of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the aforesaid

application filed by the petitioner for staying the order dated 22.5.2009,

after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six

months. However, it will be open for respondent No.3 to hear the appeal

itself and finally decide the same within the said period.

September 02, 2009                          ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                  JUDGE