C.W.P No. 17365 of 2008 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 17365 of 2008
Date of decision : March 24, 2009
Maha Singh,
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
State of Haryana and others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parveen K.Rohila, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for the respondents.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
The petitioner was recruited as a Peon in the year 1991. He is
stated to have passed Matriculation from Varanseya Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya and on the basis of that he was promoted to the post of
Clerk. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondents that the said
certificate was fake since the said Institution was not recognized. A notice
was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be
reverted. In reply, the petitioner took pleas that (i) he had taken the said
Matriculation exam under a bona fide belief; (ii) at the time when he took
C.W.P No. 17365 of 2008 ::2::
the exam the said Institution had not been determined to be a fake institute;
(iii) in any case he had passed the Matriculation afresh in the year 1997 i.e
before the issuance of the show cause notice; and (iv) at the very least he
was entitled to be considered for promotion, if not from 1991 then at least
from 1997.
The grouse in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has
been reverted on the assumption that he was not a victim but a conspirator.
Thus, the question that arises is, whether the petitioner is culpable in
procuring what he knew to be a fake certificate, or whether he was a victim,
having taken the exam under the bona fide belief that it was not a fake
examination. In my opinion, to arrive at a right conclusion in respect of this
question, it would be imperative for the respondents to conform to the
principles of natural justice.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the order,
Annexure P-6 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to
re-examine the matter in the light of the observations made above.
( AJAY TEWARI ) March 24, 2009. JUDGE `kk'