MANPHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manphool Singh has filed the present writ petition against respondents No. 1 to 3 including Ranbir Singh Mandola, MLA of Haryana Lok Dal, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and it has been prayed that at writ in the nature of certiorari be issued against the respondents and the inquiry pending against the petitioner be quashed, or, in the alternative, it may be stayed till final disposal of the criminal case pending in the criminal court at Bhiwani under Sections 199/420/467 and 471 IPC got registered by the State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar (Haryana) against the petitioner.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Field Publicity Worker in Public Relations Department, Haryana on 7.1.1988. As per the record of Registrar of Deaths and Births, Bhiwani, his date of birth is 6.4.1944. In the year 1988, respondent No. 3 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner because the family of the petitioner did not support the political ambitions of respondent No. 3. The complaint was found to be false and it was filed by the department. On 22.3.2000 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to the extent that the date of birth given in his bio-data was 1.6.1944. In the election identity card the age of the petitioner has been shown as 66 years as on 1.1.1994. In the certificate issued by the C.M.O., Bhiwani, which does not contain the name, the date of birth is 4.6.1944. The petitioner filed the reply to the show cause notice but F.I.R. No. 16 was registered against him under Section 199/420/467/471 IPC. Ultimately, he was dismissed from the service on the pressure of respondent No. 3 on 12.6.2000. The petitioner filed C.W.P. 8177 of 2000 in the High Court. The writ was allowed on 23.11.2000 and the petitioner was reinstated into service. On 3.5.2000, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on the same ground on which FIR No. 16 was registered. He again filed the reply to the said charge-sheet and inquiry was ordered to be conducted. He made representation on 1.9.2001 before respondent No. 2 to stay the inquiry till the criminal charge is finally decided by the criminal court, but respondent No. 3 is putting pressure upon respondent No. 2 in order to ensure that the petitioner should not remain in service. The action on the part of the respondents in initiating the inquiry is illegal. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the reply and according to them the petitioner concealed the fact regarding his actual date of birth in order to get appointment on the post of Block Publicity Worker in the Public Relations Department, Haryana. He submitted different dates of birth i.e. 10.4.1940, 4.6.1944 and about 66 years as on 1.1.1994 after joining duty and concealed his actual date of birth i.e. 2.2.1933 as recorded in his School Leaving Certificate. The birth certificate showing the date of birth as 4.6.1944, issued by the Additional District Registrar, Deaths and Births, Bhiwani, does not contain the name of the child born and in fact it pertains to the younger brother of the petitioner. The petitioner was not born in 1944. He has committed a grave misconduct by concealing the facts regarding his actual date of birth. He submitted different dates of his birth. His actual date of birth is 2.2.1933 and in this manner the petitioner would have retired from Government service on 28.2.1993 before the date of regularisation of his services i.e. 31.3.1993. He has taken undue benefit of regularisation of his services by wrongly and knowingly misstating his date of birth. A complaint was received against the petitioner in the office of respondent No. 2 in October, 1998 on which District Public Relations Officer, Bhiwani was asked to obtain the School Leaving Certificate in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. A copy of the communication was also endorsed to the petitioner on 20.11.1998 for information. The District Public Relations Officer, Bhiwani obtained the School Leaving Certificate from the Principal. Govt. Senior Secondary School, Jhojhu Kalan. The documents supplied by the petitioner contained different dates of his birth. Ram Kishan son of Sheo Chand resident of village Mandola (Bhiwani) made a complaint regarding declaration of false date of birth by the petitioner and an inquiry as conducted by State Vigilance Bureau. It was categorically denied that respondent No. 3 put pressure upon respondent No. 2 for registration of criminal case against the petitioner. The State Vigilance Bureau inquired into the matter and found the date of birth of the petitioner as 2.2.1933. The services of the petitioner were terminated as per rules. The order was set aside by the High Court with the observations that the respondents shall be at liberty to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order. Hence the fresh inquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. A charge-sheet has already been issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 3.5.2001. The reply to the charge-sheet has been found unsatisfactory and Shri Mahipal Singh, Joint director, Public Relations Department, Haryana has been appointed as Inquiry officer. The departmental inquiry is an administrative matter and has no concern with the criminal case registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is continuing in the Government service by falsely stating his date of birth as 4.6.1944 which is of his younger brother Shri Haquiqat, whereas the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 2.2.1993 as is evident from the School Leaving Certificate. With this defence the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the present writ petition.