LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-213

MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Decided On December 05, 2019
MANISH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P-14) vide which his appeal has been rejected. He has further sought quashing of the charge sheet (Annexure P-7), enquiry report (Annexure P-10) and consequential dismissal order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure P-5) with a direction to the respondents to re-instate him into service.

(2.) The facts in brief are that in pursuance to Advertisement (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had applied for the post of D.P.E. Master on the strength of experience certificate dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-3). He was selected and appointed vide letter dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P-2). On 26.12.2013, he was charge-sheeted on the allegation that he had submitted a wrong experience certificate. He submitted his reply denying the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed who gave his report dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure P-10) whereby he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had submitted a wrong certificate of experience to the Selection Committee. After filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner filed CWP No.21624 of 2014 titled as 'Manish Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others' before this Court which was disposed of on 25.11.2014 (Annexure P-12) with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal by passing a speaking order after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the supplementary grounds before the appellate authority. However, his appeal was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2015 which was communicated to him vide endorsement dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P-14).

(3.) Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein they have submitted that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis of forged experience certificate, therefore, his services had rightly been dismissed after holding a regular enquiry. The petitioner filed the replication reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition.