170 Anil Kumar @ Jony & ors. ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate Mrs. Sukriti Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7 to 9 Mr. S.S.Aviraj, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. G.S.Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.10. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1 Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide departmental inquiry pending against respondents No.5 to 10, claimed to have been initiated on the complaint made by the petitioners. Further prayer is that respondent No.3 be also directed to decide the vigilance inquiry initiated on the basis of complaint made by the petitioners. POOJA SHARMA2026.07.13 16:15 Page 1 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has produced copy of the inquiry report dated 27.09.2022. The copy of the inquiry report has been handed over to Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate.

3 As per the inquiry report, the Vigilance Department has found nothing against respondent No.5 apart from a deficiency in the installation of iron grill and a loss of Rs.865/- caused to the Department. 4 In view thereof, this Court finds that nothing survives in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be disposed off. However, the parties shall be at liberty to avail of their remedies in accordance with law. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA2026.07.13 16:15 Page 2 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

170 Anil Kumar @ Jony & ors. ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate Mrs. Sukriti Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7 to 9 Mr. S.S.Aviraj, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. G.S.Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.10. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1 Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide departmental inquiry pending against respondents No.5 to 10, claimed to have been initiated on the complaint made by the petitioners. Further prayer is that respondent No.3 be also directed to decide the vigilance inquiry initiated on the basis of complaint made by the petitioners. POOJA SHARMA2026.07.13 16:15 Page 1 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has produced copy of the inquiry report dated 27.09.2022. The copy of the inquiry report has been handed over to Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate.

3 As per the inquiry report, the Vigilance Department has found nothing against respondent No.5 apart from a deficiency in the installation of iron grill and a loss of Rs.865/- caused to the Department. 4 In view thereof, this Court finds that nothing survives in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be disposed off. However, the parties shall be at liberty to avail of their remedies in accordance with law. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA2026.07.13 16:15 Page 2 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document