C.W.P No. 15965 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 15965 of 2008 Date of decision : May 30, 2009 Satbir Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Pal, 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) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby he has been removed from service. The facts which have emerged are that an appointment letter was issued in the name of Satbir Singh son of Hazari Lal, r/o village and post office Baroda Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat who had applied for the C.W.P No. 15965 of 2008 ::2:: post of Clerk under Backward Class category pursuant to an advertisement which was aimed only at filling up posts from the said category. The petitioner who incidentally has the same name, the same father's name, and the same residence came upon that appointment letter and on the basis thereof he joined service. When the mistake came to light, a show cause notice was issued to him and finding that, indeed these facts were true, he was removed from service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that at no stage did the petitioner ever make any false averment and, therefore, the extreme penalty of removal from service should not have been inflicted upon him. He has further argued that after the petitioner was medically examined, he had submitted his form in which he clearly mentioned the fact that he was a general category candidate and from a perusal of which it would also be clear that the date/s of birth of the selected candidate and the petitioner were different, yet not only was the petitioner allowed to join, he was in fact allowed to continue for a period of as long as 26 years. Learned counsel further argued that if an inquiry had been instituted before terminating the services of the petitioner he would have been able to establish that there was no wrong doing on his part. I find that in the writ petition the following averments have been made :- “2. That the petitioner being a matriculate was eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk, as such, the petitioner applied for the selection and appointment as Clerk in the year of 1981 in response to the advertisement issued by Subordinate Service Selection C.W.P No. 15965 of 2008 ::3:: Commission Haryana (now known as Haryana Staff Selection Commission)-respondent No.4. 3. That in view of the excellent performance at the time of interview, as well as good academic record, the petitioner was selected for the post of Clerk by respondent No.4 and recommended his name to the office of respondent No.2 for appointment on the post of Clerk but these recommendations were not endorsed to the petitioner and other selected candidates.” Apart from the fact that the petitioner was appointed in place of a deserving candidate (which incidentally, is a mistake going to the root of the matter), I find that the petitioner has also tried to mislead this Court and has not come with clean hands. Consequently, on this score alone, the petitioner is dis-entitled to any relief. However, the matter does not end here. The fact remains that despite there being information indicating the true position of facts, the petitioner was allowed to join and continue in service for 26 long years. This does not seem to be an act of innocent negligence. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to institute an inquiry into this aspect to find out which employee/s was/were responsible for this wrongful induction of the petitioner into government service and how, when and in what circumstances was this mistake detected. Let the inquiry report be submitted to this Court within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. As mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, C.W.P No. 15965 of 2008 ::4:: the matter is adjourned to 14.10.2009 for the receipt and perusal of the inquiry report. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'