JAMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 is to issue directions to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date persons junior to him have been promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. A reference to facts would not be necessary in view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. It has been asserted that the petitioner has concealed material facts. Those facts have been detailed in sub-paras (i), (ii) and (iii) of para 1 of the preliminary objections. According to the aforementioned details, vide order dated 9.6.2000, the petitioner was awarded the punishment and warned to be careful in future; and his suspension period was treated as duty for all intends and purposes (R-1). In the second order, again he was warned to be careful in future with a copy in ACR file and his suspension period was again treated as duty period for all intents and purposes, vide order dated 30.10.2000 (R-2). The petitioner was also issued a charge sheet for misappropriating Rs. 50,260/- on 6.7.2000 on account of cost of 359 bags of cement having been used less by making false and factious entries in the measurement book. Again the petitioner was awarded punishment of Censure of conduct with a copy in his ACR file and stoppage of one annual grade increment without future effect, vide order dated 15.11.2002 (R-3). An FIR No. 18 of 1999 under Sections 409/420/467/468/417/120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner by the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, and the trial was pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. The Committee has considered the case but did not find him suitable for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and had decided to keep one post reserved for him. All these facts are material for deciding the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition as he has sought promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer with effect from the date persons junior to him have been promoted.

(2.) On our repeated queries learned counsel has not been able to tender any satisfactory explanation for not disclosing these facts in the writ petition on his own. We are left with the impression that these facts have been actively concealed with a design to obtain notice of motion. We may not have issued even notice of motion had it been brought on record that the petitioner has suffered various punishments and a criminal case is pending against him and that the case of the petitioner has been considered for promotion and he has been passed over by the Selection Committee by keeping one post reserved for him.

(3.) As early as 1978, a Full Bench of this Court in Chiranji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana,1978 PunLR 582, has held that whenever there is mala fide and calculated suppression of facts, which the petitioner is under obligation to disclose then such a petitioner is not to be heard on merit. In the present case, there has been a mala fide and calculated suppression of material facts which leads to an interference that had those facts were disclosed in the petition then we may have refused to entertain this petition at the outset. Therefore, we refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss the same with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today. In case the costs are not paid then the aforementioned authority shall intimate back to this Court with regard to non-payment of costs. A copy of this order is sent to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.