C.W.P No. 5137 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5137 of 2008 Date of decision : March 19, 2009 Ex. Constable Sanjay Kumar, ...... 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. Yashdeep Singh, 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 The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 13.11.2000. On 3.11.2006, he was issued a charge sheet on the ground that he had concealed the fact that a criminal case was pending against him in the application form filled by him. The petitioner filed reply stating that even though the allegation that the case was pending was true yet the allegation that he had not disclosed the fact was not correct and that rather on his disclosure a report had been sought from the SHO, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar. On this ground, the petitioner distinguished the case of C.W.P No. 5137 of 2008 ::2:: Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana, CWP No.501 of 2005 decided on 22.9.2005, since in that case the petitioner therein had concealed the same information. He further mentioned that he had been acquitted in the criminal case by judgment dated 6.11.2001. In the inquiry it was, however, found that the petitioner had not only concealed the information but also he had fraudulently incorporated the details subsequently in one of the forms submitted by him. The argument of counsel for the petitioner is that this allegation of having made a subsequent entry was never incorporated in the charge sheet and, therefore, this conclusion was arrived at without there being any evidence in support thereof and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut this allegation. In my opinion, what is determinative in this case is not so much the non-disclosure by the petitioner but the allegation that not only did he not disclose at the relevant time, he incorporated it in the form fraudulently and surreptitiously at a later stage to be able to take the plea of prior disclosure. However, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, he had no opportunity to meet this charge. In the circumstances, the finding recorded that he was guilty of this infraction cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the dismissal order dated 16.4.2007 as well as the subsequent appellate orders rejecting the appeal of the petitioner are set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to issue a supplementary charge sheet to the petitioner incorporating the above charge within a period of four weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be granted further period of four weeks to file reply and thereafter the inquiry will be concluded and final order passed C.W.P No. 5137 of 2008 ::3:: within four months. It is, however, made clear that even though the dismissal order has been set aside and the petitioner reinstated into service yet he would not be entitled to any benefits of pay or seniority etc. till the time he is exonerated. This peculiar direction has been made since in my opinion, the charge against the petitioner is extremely serious and if he is ultimately found guilty, he would not be entitled to take the benefit of technicalities. Of-course, in the event of exoneration the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Conversely, if the petitioner is found guilty, then fresh order passed would be deemed to relate back to 16.4.2007. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 19, 2009. JUDGE `kk'