CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12259 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 19, 2010 Ex.Constable Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Three Civil Writ Petition Nos.12259 of 2009 (Ex.Constable Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 12261 of 2009 (Ex.Constable Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), and 12314 of 2009 (Ex.Constable Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others) are being disposed of together as a common question of fact and law arises in these cases. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.12259 of 2009. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12259 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: On 15.6.2002, certain posts of Constable Drivers were advertised. The petitioner applied for the same and was selected. He was offered appointment on 14.3.2003. Subsequently, he was charge-sheeted with the allegation that driving licence issued on 28.6.1998 by Licensing Authority, Hodal was found bogus. In reply, the petitioner submitted that he was having two driving licenses. One driving licence was issued by Licensing Authority, Agra on 6.9.1996 whereas another was of the year 1998 issued by Licensing Authority, Hodal. The plea was that the earlier licence was misplaced and so the second one was obtained from Licensing Authority, Hodal, through a Agent of the Licensing Authority. This licence was concededly shown at the time of recruitment. The petitioner was issued show cause notice for dismissal on 3.7.2007. In response, the petitioner pleaded that he had a valid licence which could be verified from Agra. The respondent State, however, dismissed the petitioner on 17.9.2007. Having failed in his appeal, the present writ petition was filed before this Court. Similar are the facts in the other two cases except for the dates of the licenses obtained. In response, State has filed reply. While issuing notice of motion, the State was directed to get the second driving licence verified from the issuing authority at the cost of the petitioner. In the meantime, reply has been filed. It is disclosed that the petitioner had submitted a driving licence issued by D.T.O., Faridabad, whereas the report from the D.T.O office showed that no driving licence was either renewed or issued on 28.6.1998, as was submitted by the petitioner. It was also denied that the petitioner at the time of recruitment had CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12259 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: submitted a second driving licence issued by Licensing Authority at Agra. Faced with this situation, the counsel changed track, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 3.11.2009 and only prayed that the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically to see if the order of dismissal could be converted to removal so that the petitioner may be in a position to seek re-employment. The State counsel was requested to have instructions in this regard. Because of change of roster, the case was listed before another Bench on 30.11.2009, where again an attempt appears to have been made to make submissions on merits. The cases have subsequently been placed before this Bench. The State counsel was requested to have instructions as per the earlier order. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Senior counsel again made an attempt to make submissions on merits, which can not be appreciated. Since the fake driving licence was presented at the time of enrollment and the second driving licence was never produced at that time, no case for interference on merits is made out. The plea in this regard was earlier rejected and only then the State counsel was asked to have instructions for the limited relief. The issue can not be re-opened to consider the plea on merits. The attempt made to get the issue re- opened would in itself dis-entitle the petitioner to even a limited relief of commutation of penalty. Even otherwise the State counsel has also expressed inability on the part of the State to commute this penalty. I have not been able to find any justifiable reason to condone the conduct of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12259 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: getting appointment on the basis of a fake record and a driving licence. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in these case and would dismiss the writ petitions. February 19,2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE