CWP no. 19762 of2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 19762 of2008 (O&M) Decided on : 18-03-2011 Ram Kishan ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his services. He was appointed as a Class IV Sweeper. The only reason to terminate his services has been the vigilance inquiry which was allegedly conducted by the respondents which pointed to orders of regularisation being passed by some officials on accepting illegal gratification. On the basis of the vigilance inquiry, a separate inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner on the allegation that he had also obtained this benefit without their being any legal right existing in his favour. The inquiry officer held against the petitioner and the impugned order of dismissal was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material to suggest that the petitioner was in any way instrumental in passing on illegal gratification which according to the respondents is the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner as he had unauthorisedly obtained such a benefit. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that once a vigilance inquiry has concluded that there were huge irregularities, the CWP no. 19762 of2008 (O&M) 2 petitioner who also falls within the ambit of the vigilance inquiry has been rightly dismissed from service. Upon perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents is totally unjustified. There is no material to suggest that the petitioner ever paid illegal gratification to obtain an order of regularisation. Whether he was entitled to regularisation or not is a separate issue and if his services have been regularised contrary to the law or policy by the respondents then he cannot be held responsible for the same, unless it is proved beyond any doubt that he had obtained such a benefit by active mis-representation or active fraud. There does not seem to be any material to suggest such a complicity at the level of the petitioner. Besides, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP no. 6539 of 2008 titled as Angrej Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.7.2008 in similar circumstances has already set aside the order of dismissal of persons who were similarly situated as the petitioner and who allegedly were also accused of complicity with officials of the respondents in procuring similar orders. Having regard to the aforesaid, when there is no material on record to suggest the complicity of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of dismissal of services of the petitioner is totally arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Hence, the instant petition is accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service. March 18 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge