Full Judgment
CWP No.3709 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3709 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2014 Saroop Singh and another .Petitioners v.
The State of Punjab and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.
Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Maninder, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Anshul Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab..Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 9.8.2003 (Annexure P-6).passed in the case of petitioner No.1, and 18.8.2003 (Annexure P-7).passed in the case of petitioner No.2, whereby services of the petitioners were dispensed with during the period of probation.
As is evident from the ordeRs.the services of the petitioners were dispensed with as it was found that the degrees/certificates produced by them from Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya were found to be fake.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the allegations that the petitioners had produced fake certificates, criminal cases were also registered against the petitioneRs.Petitioner No.1, though was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, however, his appeal was accepted by Sessions Judge on 27.10.2009, meaning thereby it could not be proved that the petitioner had produced a fake certificate.
He further submitted that some similarly situated employees were given re-appointment even after Kumar Manoj 2014.03.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3709 of 2012 [2].their writ petition was dismissed, whereas some file appeals/representations.
The same were accepted and they were reinstated back in service.
It was further submitted that as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, though his services were dispensed with during the period of probation on 18.8.2003, however, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending when the writ petition was filed.
He was acquitted on 11.10.2013.
The appeals filed by both the petitioners are pending.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appeal filed against the order dispensing with the services of an employee during the period of probation is not maintainable.
He further submitted that as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches for the reason that the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner is dated 9.8.2003 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2012.
The same is belated even if considered from the date the petitioner was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge on 27.10.2009.
As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, besides delay as the order dispensing with his services is dated 18.8.2003, criminal case against him was still pending when the writ petition was filed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
As far as the contention of the petitioners that the appeals filed by them immediately after their services were dispensed with should have been considered and decided is merely to be noticed and rejected for the reason that in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules').under Rule 15, an appeal lies against an order imposing any of the penalty, specified in Rule 5.
Rule 5 thereof defines minor and major penalties.
Explanation (vii)(b) thereto provides that dispensing with the services of an employee during or on completion of period of probation is not treated as one of the penalty imposed under the Rule.
Once that is so, to state that an appeal is maintainable against the order dispensing with the services of the petitioners during the period of probation is totally misconceived.
No direction as such can be issued to the authorities to consider and dispose of such an appeal.
The contention raised Kumar Manoj 2014.03.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.3709 of 2012 [3].by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order was by way of punishment is also to be noticed and rejected as the Rules clearly define that this shall not be considered as a punishment under Rule 5.
As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, his services were dispensed with on 9.8.2003.
The criminal case was also registered against him on 17.9.2003.
Though he was initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate on 3.6.2009, however, subsequently his appeal was accepted by learned Sessions Judge on 27.10.2009.
The writ petition was filed in February, 2012.
On account of delay and laches, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Reference can be made to the judgment of this court in CWP No.3124 of 2011-Harnam Singh v.
State of Punjab and otheRs.decided on 10.3.2014.
As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the order dispensing with the services is dated 18.8.2003.
It is not in dispute that till such time the present petition was filed, the trial against him was still pending as admittedly he was acquitted only on 11.10.2013, meaning thereby he did not have any cause of action to file the present petition on the date it was filed.
Accordingly the petition filed on his behalf also deserves to be dismissed.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.3.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.03.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document