IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10589 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10th March, 2009 Moola Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 73 dated 19.02.2008 registered at Police Station City Yamunanagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Allegation against the petitioner, in the present FIR (Annexure P-9), is that he had procured a disability certificate dated 25th July, 2007, according to which, disability suffered by the petitioner was 70 percent. On the strength of this certificate, petitioner had sought extension of two years in service. Petitioner was due to retire at the age of 58, i.e. on superannuation, but according to the Government policy, person suffering from a physical handicap is granted two years more service. It has further been stated in the FIR that petitioner purchased fans and tube lights worth to Rs.34.00 lacs without issuing tender. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has suffered from shortening of leg and at the time of joining service, vide Annexure P-1 dated 6th August, 1974, he had furnished his disability certificate. Counsel has further stated that another disability certificate Criminal Misc. No. M-10589 of 2008 (O&M) (Annexure P-2) was furnished by the petitioner, which was dated 16th March, 1979. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner had taken no benefit of these certificates as he discharged his duties as a general category candidate. Counsel has stated that Civil Surgeon, Sonepat had issued a certificate that petitioner is suffering from 70 percent disability. A doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the certificates, whereby disability of the petitioner was determined. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of departmental politics. Whether petitioner is 70 percent disable or not, is a matter of fact, which can always be determined. PGIMS, Rohtak is an autonomous body, having its independence and requisite skills to determine the extent of disability. Investigating Officer shall take the petitioner to PGIMS, Rohtak on 26th March, 2009 to find out the extent of disability and authenticity of certificates furnished by the petitioner, on the basis of which extension in service was sought. It has been submitted by Mr.S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana that report of the PGIMS, Rohtak shall form part of the investigation and thereafter, the Investigating Officer shall conclude whether report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is to be submitted against the petitioner or not. In case petitioner fails to appear before the Investigating Officer and PGIMS, Rohtak, then Investigating Officer will be at liberty to submit his report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. Copy of this order be given dasti, on payment of usual charges. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 10, 2009 rps 2