IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8682 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 17, 2011. Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari on compassionate ground after the death of his father. However, his selection has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 3/4.5.2011 (Annexure P-5) on account of his involvement in two criminal cases, one registered under Section 379 IPC and other under Section 392 IPC. The impugned order also reveals that the petitioner was absent from the training. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in one of the criminal cases, a compromise has been effected and the proceedings for quashing the FIR have been initiated and in another case the petitioner is said to have been found innocent. It is also claimed that the petitioner did not absent CWP No.8682 of 2011 [2] from the training and had proceeded on leave. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the above stated plea taken by the petitioner is a factual assertion which needs to be verified by the competent authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the District Collector, Mansa who shall verify the facts and in case the petitioner's plea is found to be correct, shall re-consider the impugned order dated 3/4.5.2011 in accordance with law/Rules. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. May 17, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE