PUSHPINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the State Government on 31.7.2012, whereby the petitioner was removed from service in accordance with the provisions of Sub Rule (ix) of Rule 4 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Sirsa on 29.5.1998. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet firstly on 19.5.2009 in respect of six charges and secondly on 24.4.2010 in respect of three charges. The petitioner denied the allegations in the said two charge sheets. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to examine the charges in both the charge sheets. In respect of first inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted on 22.11.2010 reporting that charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 stands proved against the petitioner, whereas in the second charge sheet, the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 7.12.2011, proving charge Nos. 1 and 2. Both the inquiry reports were supplied to the petitioner. The replies filed by the Petitioner were considered. The Petitioner was also granted personal hearing in both the proceedings. In respect of the first inquiry, the Committee recommended forfeiture of five annual grade increments with permanent effect, in its meeting held on 3.11.2011, whereas in respect of second charge sheet, the Committee recommended major penalty of removal of service in its meeting held on 24.5.2012. The Full Court approved the recommendations of the Committee on 10.7.2012. It is, thereafter, the impugned order of removal from service has been passed.

(3.) At this stage, it may be mentioned that for the year 2006-07, the petitioner was graded C-Below Average (Integrity Doubtful) by the Administrative Judge of Faridabad Sessions Division. The representations dated 4.6.2007 and 17.7.2007 of the petitioner against the said report, were rejected vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure P.21). The petitioner submitted second representation, which was also declined on 14.9.2011.