RAJIV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is an unfortunate case where a tampered document has been placed on record in order to get the order of dismissal dated 15.04.2014 (Annexure P21) set aside.

(2.) The petitioner had been appointed as a Vocational Master on 23.05.2011, on the strength of a handicap certificate dated 19.09.2008 (Annexure P2). The said certificate showed that the petitioner had 2 disabilities, one pertaining to his eye -sight (visual disability) and second was the weakening of left upper limb. On a complaint dated 14.01.2013 received by the department, the matter was referred to a committee of Doctors for verification of the handicap which the petitioner was allegedly suffering from. A show cause notice dated 13.01.2013 was also issued to the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated. Opinion was received from the committee that the petitioner had refused to get his re -examination conducted and therefore, it was recorded that his re -examination be conducted from higher authorities like the Government Medical College, PGIMER, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the petitioner's services were terminated by respondent No. 2, with immediate effect, on account of committing fraud with the Government, after the Enquiry Officer had given his report dated 11.12.2013. The Department of Ophthalmmology, PGIMER also, on 16.06.2014 (Annexure P24) came to the conclusion that the visual disability was 20% in the right eye and as per the notification dated 21.06.2001 (Annexure P23), the benefit was not to be given as 40% disability was required to be eligible for the benefit.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the correspondence dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P24), which was addressed to the father of the petitioner to show that the disability which the petitioner was suffering in the right eye had wrongly been taken to be 20% whereas as per the notification (Annexure P23), the disability should have been assessed as 40%, in Category -I. It is, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner had corresponded with the medical experts at PGIMER and they had assured him that they could give a new report, based on newer guidelines. Accordingly, it has been submitted that by a subsequent report dated 25.09.2014 (Annexure P29), issued by PGIMER, now, his disability has been assessed at between 20 -40% instead 20% as given in the earlier report, by the same Medical Board. A perusal of the same would go on to show that the Board had also recorded that the petitioner can appear before the Board for re -assessment. In such circumstances, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently attempted to punch holes in the termination orders and submit that it was without any basis.