HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12281 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 **** Daljinder Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Gaganeshwar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner on the basis of an entry in her Service Book to the effect that she had passed Punjabi Type Test from “Sethi Institute of Commercial Education, Gurdaspur”, got an increment released in her favour. (2). The so-called ‘Sethi Institute of Commercial Education’ was neither recognized by the State Government nor the said ‘Institute’ conducted any Test under the supervision of the Departmental authorities. It is obvious that the ‘certificate’ relied upon by the petitioner is bogus and fake. No sooner the authorities detected the fraud that the undue increment has been withdrawn after serving the petitioner with a show cause notice. CWP No.12281 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). The petitioner assails the above-stated order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P12) inter alia contending that (i) that there is an inordinate delay; (ii) the show cause notice has not been issued by the competent authority; and (iii) that the impugned order is non-speaking. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in any of these contentions. The principle of delay or laches cannot be attracted for the detection of fraud. The plea that the show cause notice was not issued by the competent authority is wholly inconsequential as the impugned order has been passed with the concurrence and approval of the higher authorities. In any case no prejudice on this count can be said to have been caused as the increment was secured by the petitioner through unfair and fraudulent means. (5). Similarly, the plea that the impugned order is non- speaking cannot be accepted as it expressly recites that the petitioner got the benefit of “annual increments without passing the departmental Punjabi type test….”, which was earlier established in a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the authorities. (6). Moreover, in para 3 of their written statement, the respondents have categorically averred that “the department conducted Punjabi Type Test so many times but CWP No.12281 of 2010.doc - 3 – the petitioner could not pass the Punjabi Type Test”. This fact has gone unrebutted. (7). No case to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure P12) is made out. Dismissed. 30.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge