M A I N   N E W S

Remove Director, says court
By Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, May 2 — Allowing an application moved by the Punjab Cane Commissioner, Mr Mewa Singh Sonar, the UT Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mr Mahender Singh, has directed the Punjab Government “to take the current duty charge of the Director, Agriculture, away from Mr Deep Singh Sahota with immediate effect”.

Pronouncing the orders in open court, the Civil Judge also directed that the “Government may, however, give the charge to some senior Joint Director in accordance with their instructions till the post was filled on regular basis”.

Terming the assigning of the current duty charge to Mr Sahota as “apparently contrary to the instructions issued by the Government, besides being against the principles of natural justice”, Mr Sonar had earlier stated that an irreparable loss would be suffered as the defendant was “much junior to him”.

Giving details, he had stated that even the annual confidential report would be recorded by the defendant despite his being junior. Moreover, he would also have to get the casual leave and tour allowances sanctioned from the defendant, Mr Sonar had elaborated.

Claiming to be the senior-most Joint Director, he had added that the current duty charge, as per the Government’s instructions, “should be given only to the senior-most official who was entitled to be promoted in all respects”. He had added that the defendant was promoted as Joint Director, Agriculture, in October, 1989, while he was promoted in May, 1984.

Going into the background, the petitioner had stated that due to his false implication in the fertilizer scam he was temporarily suspended. Though he had been reinstated to the original post of Cane Commissioner, the “Government was adamant in not assigning the Director Agriculture’s duty to him,” Mr Sonar had added.

The defendants, in their reply, had, on the other hand, contended that irreparable loss was not being caused to the applicant as he was performing regular duty as the Cane Commissioner.

They had added that in the interest of government work the post was being filled from among the Joint Directors on regular basis “in compliance with the High Court directions”. The petitioner’s name, they had added, was being considered along with other officers.

After hearing the arguments, the Civil Judge observed: “Prima Facie, the applicant has established that the current duty charge assigned to the respondent was patently illegal and contrary to the Government circular and instructions”.

The Civil Judge also observed: “In case the respondent remained on the Director’s post, the applicant, who was much senior to him, would have to work under his junior which was totally against the principles of natural justice. Thus, certainly he would be tortured mentally and such a loss cannot be compensated in any manner, therefore, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the instant application succeeds and is allowed”.