CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service through the present writ petition. He was enrolled as a Constable Driver on 17.4.2003. After more than three years, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on 10.7.2006 on the ground that he had obtained a driving licence before attaining the age of 20 years. The explanation was also sought from the licencing authority, but in response it is stated that there was no concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It was pointed out that the petitioner was issued a driving licence with a condition that he will not drive the vehicle in the public place before the attaining the age of 20 years. Still the petitioner was dismissed from service on 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-5). Statutory appeal filed by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 of 2010 -2- the petitioner against order of dismissal was rejected by the Inspector General, Haryana Armed Police on 3.7.2008 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner also remained unsuccessful in his revision petition, which was dismissed on 7.8.2009 (Annexure P-10). Accordingly, he has filed the present writ petition on the various grounds. The stand taken in the reply is that the candidate must have a driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle and must have such an experience for a minimum 3 years from the last date of submission of the application form. As is revealed from the reply, some persons, who were applicants for the posts, had challenged the selection made by filing C.W.P. No. 11760 of 2003 titled as 'Rajesh Kumar jand another Versus State of Haryana and others' and the said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to decide the representation filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition by passing a speaking order. The said representation was rejected, which was again challenged through C.W.P. No.19027 of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2005 directing t he Director General of Police, to hold an enquiry into the validity or otherwise of the driving licences of the selected candidates. Direction further was that if after inquiry, it was found that the driving licence of the selected candidates were not genuine or they were not having any valid licence then appropriate action be taken against them. It is, thereafter, that action has followed against the petitioner. After inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and a show cause notice was issued to him for imposing the punishment of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 of 2010 -3- dismissal from service. The petitioner had filed reply and after considering the same, impugned order has been passed. Mr. Malik in support of his plea to challenge the dismissal has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.13941 of 2008, decided on 27.11.2008. In the case before the Division Bench, the issue was regarding the proposed action to terminate the service of the persons appointed like the petitioner in the first Indian Reserve Battalion on the alleged ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Having made reference to the eligibility criteria, the Division Bench has considered the fact of such candidates having obtained eligibility experience during the course of their service. Reference is made to the judgments in the case of Bhagwati Prasad and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development ,1990 1 SCC 361 and AIR 1978 SC 1536 1979 1 SCC 168 and the Division Bench has held that the experience acquired on the post can be taken into consideration which would sufficient to fill up the initial lacuna, if any. No submissions are made before me to distinguish the case of the petitioner for me to take a different view. Rather, the State had filed the Special Leave Petition against the order passed by the Division Bench, which the State has withdrawn. This case was adjourned on 4.8.2010 to enable the State counsel to have instructions whether the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.13941 of 2008, titled as 'Constable Kanwal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others', was put to any challenge and the information that SLP was filed but has been withdrawn is disclosed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 of 2010 -4- only in response to this query. Accordingly, the impugned orders can also not be sustained. The petitioner is identically placed as is the case of the petitioner in Constable Kanwal Singh's case (supra). Though Constable Kanwal Singh had approached against the show cause notice and challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of dismissal, but it would not make any difference. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 5.7.2007(Annexure P-5), dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure P-8) and dated 7.8.2009 ((Annexure P-10) are set aside. The petitioner being a driver, cannot be taken to have totally remained idle during the entire period he was out of the service. To balance the equity, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum. September 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE