CWP No.17259 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17259 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 24.02.2009 M. M. Dhonchak ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. R. S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI J. The petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 13.05.2003 on the charges of pressurizing the police to cancel a criminal case against his brother, and that he as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of that very District launched 17 prosecutions against the District Police Chief, and other such acts. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet protesting his innocence and claiming that in fact the competent authority had recommended cancellation of the case against his brother much earlier and it was in order to pressurize him to withdraw/go-easy on the prosecutions launched by him that the police started reinvestigating the case. At that time, the competent authority after considering his reply and not finding it satisfactory, initiated regular inquiry. However, later the petitioner obtained some information under the Right to Information Act which showed that in fact his assertions seem to be correct, in as much as the original cancellation report with regard to CWP No.17259 of 2008 (O&M) -2- his brother, predated the prosecutions launched by him. The petitioner moved a representation to the competent authority requesting for initiation of criminal prosecution against the erring police officials who had forged the record. This representation and the supporting material was considered by the District Judge/Registrar (Vigilance), Haryana who prima facie found as follows:- “From the averments in the application of Shri M. M. Dhonchak, supported by the record it is very clear that the police record has been forged and fraud has been committed upon this Court in mala fidely and wrongly informing this Court by Shri M. S. Ahlawat that prosecution was launched against him by Shri M. M. Dhonchak, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, as Shri M. S. Ahlawat had started reinvestigating a criminal case against his real brother, whereas as a matter of fact, the facts were quite otherwise i.e. when prosecution was launched against Shri M. S. Ahlawat, by the Court of Shri M. M. Dhonchak and when Shri M. S. Ahlawat came to know that real brother of Shri M. M. Dhonchak, was an accused in a criminal case and after due investigations, cancellation report had already been submitted, then after forging or getting police record forged, wrongfully started reinvestigating the case against the brother of Shri M. M. Dhonchak.” The learned District Judge recommended that the representation of the petitioner be treated as a writ petition which was agreed to by Hon'ble CWP No.17259 of 2008 (O&M) -3- the Chief Justice and the said petition is stated to be pending. The claim made in the present petition is that in this view of the matter, the disciplinary proceedings should be quashed. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that these prima facie findings recorded by the learned District Judge/Registrar (Vigilance) would not be sufficient for this Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings in writ jurisdiction. I find merit in this argument. However, it can not be gainsaid that the information unearthed by the petitioner {and corroborated as mentioned above by the District Judge/Registrar (Vigilance)} would constitute a new facet to this matter, which was not in possession of the petitioner at the time he filed his reply. Further it cannot be said that this material could have been relied upon by him at the time of filing his reply. In my opinion, it could be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to file a supplementary reply to the charge sheet alongwith material which he has now obtained and the competent authority would consider the same and then take a fresh decision on the question of the advisability of either dropping the charge sheet or ordering a fresh inquiry or allowing the pending inquiry to continue. It is made clear that such representation must be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order . If the same is so made the matter shall be considered by the competent authority. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed off. February 24, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE