IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5436 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:16.11.2011 Hem Raj ...Petitioner versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Raj Pal Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) CM No.5368 of 2011 1. The application for recalling of the order dismissing the petition for default is allowed and the case is taken up for final hearing with the consent of both parties. Civil Writ Petition No.5436 of 1989 2. The petitioner had been served with an order of dismissal by the respondent on the ground that he had given a false affidavit at the time of seeking employment that he had not suffered any conviction for any criminal offence. The charge was that he had Civil Writ Petition No.5436 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - been convicted for an offence under Excise Act for possession of liquor bottles and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25/- and in default 7 days imprisonment. The reply by the petitioner was that on the very same allegation, a charge-sheet had been previously levied which was withdrawn on his statement that the Criminal Court conviction was about another person in the village having the same name and father's name. A fresh charge-sheet had been levied on the very same facts after withdrawing the previous charge-sheet. The withdrawal of the previous charge-sheet had not been on any finding that the petitioner's defence was accepted, but I do not want to detain myself on the objection that a fresh charge-sheet could not have been issued. 3. Assuming that the subsequent charge-sheet was justified on fresh facts available before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner presented himself, gave evidence that he had never been convicted for any criminal offence and also tendered the presence and evidence of another person having the same name and father's name. The said person Hem Raj son of Partap Chand said that he had been imposed with a fine of Rs.20/- and there was only one case against him. The Enquiry Officer in his report has observed that yet another person Hem Raj son of Partap Chand gave evidence that his grandfather's name was Nand Lal and that his father was literate, in that he could sign his own name. These factors, according to the Enquiry Officer, made evident that the person, who was convicted, Civil Writ Petition No.5436 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - was really the petitioner himself and not the other person Hem Raj son of Partap Chand. The Enquiry Officer also observed that the police had made verification and had stated that the criminal case had been registered and the conviction was made only against the petitioner and not against the other person. 4. It is not very clear from the report of the Enquiry Officer as to how the grandfather's name was ever referred to in the criminal court proceedings to come to the conclusion that the petitioner alone could have been convicted. It is again not brought out anywhere in the report as to when the police gave information to the Enquiry Officer that it was the petitioner, who was convicted and what was the basis for such an assertion. The police himself does not appear to have cited as a witness by the management but the Enquiry Officer has merely drawn on some private information from the police. There is certainly no proof that it was the petitioner, who suffered conviction in the Criminal Court. The Enquiry Officer's report contained yet another serious error in finding that the petitioner had been convicted for yet another case under the Excise Act as well which was not even the subject of charge-sheet. The report of the Enquiry Officer was clearly flawed and the disciplinary authority was in error in not accepting the petitioner's defence and rejecting the Enquiry Officer's report. Again it must be noticed that the charge-sheet was not that he had committed the offence during his service. The charge-sheet was that the non-disclosure of a fine of Civil Writ Petition No.5436 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - Rs.25/- for an offence under the Excise Act at the time of taking employment in the affidavit of personal particulars given by the petitioner amounted to misconduct. This could have hardly justified even such a serious punishment of removal from service. 5. It appears that the order of dismissal was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition and he continued in service and was also subsequently superannuated. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled to the terminal benefits which are said to have been withheld on account of pendency of this case. 6. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 16.11.2011 sanjeev