Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 443 (HP)

ROSHAN LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-05-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):-The matter was heard on 6.5.2009. However, it was not clear from the records whether one or two inquiries were held against the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Education. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for speaking to the minutes. However, inadvertently, the matter was listed for re-hearing. Consequently, it was clarified by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General at the time of re-hearing of the petition that, in fact, two inquiries were conducted by the Deputy Director, Education; one on 20.1.2000 and second on 10.5.2000. Accordingly, thereafter the judgment is dictated in the open Court. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon-cum-Class IV in the respondent department in May, 1973. He was regularised in May, 1989. He submitted the certificate issued by the Medical Board on 27th January, 1989 and his age was assessed as 44 years. However, it appears that a complaint was filed against him. As per the contents of the complaint, the date of birth of the petitioner was 5th October, 1927. The record was produced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is apparent from the record that the matter was looked into by the Director, Education. The Deputy Director, Education submitted the report to the Joint Director on 20th January, 2000. He came to the conclusion that the age of the petitioner could not be 44 years after verifying the date of birth of his elder son as 16.1.1956. The difference in the age of petitioner and his son according to school leaving certificate was nearly 12 years. It appears that the matter was further enquired into by the Deputy Director of Education and he submitted the report to the Director, Education on 10th May, 2000. Consequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 21st November, 2000. He was directed to file reply to the same within a period of one week. However, he filed reply to the show cause notice on 28th January, 2001 and also submitted supplementary reply dated 29.1.2001. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 15th January, 2001. He has been dismissed under Rule 11 clause IX of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. However, the record reveals that no departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was conducted. 3. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 15th January, 2001. He has been dismissed under Rule 11 clause IX of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. However, the record reveals that no departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was conducted. 3. There is variance in the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school leaving certificate placed on record and the certificate issued by the Medical Board. He was regularised in the year 1989. He was required to be issued regular charge-sheet and thereafter the inquiry was to be held in accordance with Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The services of the petitioner could not be dispensed in a summary manner resorted to by the Deputy Director of Education. 4. Accordingly, Annexure A-6 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and to culminate the same within a period of three months from today. In case he is found guilty of concealing/suppressing his date of birth, it will be open for the respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against him. 5. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The record requisitioned is ordered to be returned.