JAI SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent -State doubted the genuineness of the certificate obtained by the Petitioner, on the basis of which, he sought public employment. Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by way of Original Application No. 452 of 1998. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 28th July, 1999. The order reads thus: This Tribunal has been informed that all these applications can be disposed of at this stage on the basis of order passed by the Apex Court in similar type of cases. The Apex Court decided Civil Appeal No. 7835 -7842 of 1996 on December 9, 1997. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants some Review Petition before the Apex Court reviewing the aforesaid order was also filed which according to learned Addl. Advocate General was not considered favourably. 2. For the sake of convenience the order as passed by the Apex Court is being reproduced hereunder: The High Court allowed the writ petitions of the Respondents mainly on the ground that the contesting Respondents have not been given an opportunity to show that their appointments were on the basis of correct and genuine certificates and not on false/fake certificates, as alleged by the Appellants (vide para 22 of the judgment). There is no ground to interfere with the Tribunal 'sjudgment except to modify it slightly with the direction to the Appellants to give an opportunity to the Respondents individually to show cause and establish that the certificates are not false and fake and that their appointments were on the basis of genuine certificates. As and when they establish the fact that the certificates were genuine and not faked ones, it must be taken that their appointments were valid. In view of the long pendency of the matter, the Appellants are directed to commence and complete the enquiry within six months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 3. On the basis of aforesaid order in the present application also the Respondents are directed to commence and complete the enquiry within six months. The applicants if not satisfied with the said enquiry they are permitted to avail of any legal via media to redress their grievances. With these observations and directions, all these applications stands disposed of. The parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the Petitioner made a representation on 4th October, 1999, seeking re -appointment. Petitioner also sought implementation of the judgment vide communication dated 2nd March, 2000. It is apparent that the Petitioner filed a contempt petition for implementation of order dated 28.07.1999. The same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 30.12.2004. Petitioner assailed the order dated 30.12.2004 by way of C.W.P. No. 206 of 2005. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.05.2005. The judgment reads thus: After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the contempt charge against the Respondents because undoubtedly, no contempt charge was made out. Vide judgment dated 28.07.1999 passed in O.A. No. 152 of 1988, the Tribunal had directed the Respondents to commence and complete the inquiry within six months. This direction actually emanated from an order passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on 9th December, 1997 in Civil Appeal No. 7835 -7842 of 1996. From what we have seen, the inquiry indeed was completed, but unfortunately for the Petitioner, he could not participate in the inquiry because according to him, the letter dated 05.11.1999 sent to him at his New Delhi address did not reach him. As far as Respondents are concerned, they performed their part by dispatching the letter. Contempt charge in any case is not made out. Petition stands dismissed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Respondents, the Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 05.11.1999 to make himself available for the purpose of inquiry on 22.12.2004. However, the Petitioner did not avail this opportunity and, ultimately, the inquiry report was furnished by the inquiry officer vide Annexure A -7, dated 24.01.2000.