OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP No.13326 of 2015, Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and others and CWP No.13341 of 2015, Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and others. Mr. Namit Kumar says that the two cases are identical and can be decided by a common order. Facts have been culled from the first writ petition.

(2.) There is a striking distinction between the minor penalty of Censure for reasons other than doubting integrity of an employee and one which is not based on integrity doubted. If the basis of award of minor punishment of Censure relates to a charge of corruption and the integrity of the official is found under cloud, then the Haryana Government instructions dated May 21, 1973 would come into play. The instructions warrant that when doubt has been expressed by the reporting officer regarding honesty, and the remarks and assessment of the work and conduct of an employee, he should not be promoted. As per these instructions it will be open to the appointing authority to ignore adverse remarks relating to doubtful integrity in reports which are more than ten years old. The effect of punishment based on misconduct involving integrity and character when comes forth then a delinquent employee cannot claim promotion or ACP pay scales as a matter of right until the expiration of the period of ten years.

(3.) On facts, it may be stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that while posted at Police Post, Court Complex, Rewari on December 14, 2006, one Bhim Singh s/o Hukam Singh r/o Village Sulkha approached the petitioner for lodging a complaint of his missing mobile phone for which the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.100.00to register the complaint and on complainant's refusal to pay the amount the petitioner scored out the report made on the affidavit with his pen. The original was produced by Mr. Rathee for perusal of the Court. On examining it I find several words crossed out in the complaint on its reverse page. As a result of the complaint, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and the punishment of Censure was awarded to him by order dated January 11, 2007. The punishment has attained finality. The petitioner says that when his case for grant of 2 nd ACP came up of for consideration he came to know of the order and appealed against it. The appeal has been rejected on November 12, 2013 by order Annex P-5.