S FATEH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-1954-8-5
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 27,1954

S. FATEH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This rule is obtained by the petitioner against an order of dismissal passed against him by the Punjab Government dated 25-8-1053 (Annexure 'Q' attached to the petition).
(2.) The petitioner was a temporary Engineer, in the Irrigation Department and he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service for having secured his appointment fraudulently by making a wrong statement in his application dated 9-9-1946 in which he stated that he had passed the examination of A. M. I. Mech. E. which as a matter of fact he had not passed. On 6-12-1950 the petitioner was charge-sheeted and in the statement of reasons relating to Charge No. 1 it was stated: "In your application (or the post of a Temporary Engineer (Mechanical) in the P. W. D., Irrigation Branch, dated 9-9-46 under item No. 21 which reads as follows: 'Give particulars of all Examinations passed and degrees and technical qualifications obtained at the University or other places of higher education or instruction (commencing with the Matriculation or equivalent Exam.:' You stated at No. 6 that you had passed the A. M. I. Mech. E. (London) at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London in the year, 1944-45, and for the subjects taken you referred App. II which is reproduced below: (1) Subjects of the A. M. I. Mech. E. (London examination- (1) English Language (2) Fundamentals of Industrial Administration (3) Applied Mathematics (4) Physics and Chemistry (5) Workshop Organization and Management etc. An enquiry from the Secretary of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London had elicited that you passed Section 1 which at that time was Mathematics and a Science paper, and Section C, Economics of Engineering in October 1943 and passed the remainder of Section A in 1945. You were not successful in passing Section B and in fact had failed in that section. Further, that, you are neither a member of the Institution in any class nor have a right to claim any connection whatsoever with the Institution. In view of this categorical information, your statement made in September, 1946 to the effect that you had passed the A. M. I. Mech. E. (London) examination in 1944-45 is a clear misstatement made to secure an appointment In the Irrigation Department. The plea of your having made this statement on the strength of a Post Card from the Secretary of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, declaring you successful in passing Section B of the Associate Membership Examination in October 1946 also does not hold good * * *" In the second charge the allegation was that the petitioner had deliberately, in order to continue in employment, for which he was not eligible, delayed compliance with letters dated 8-6-1949 and 11-1-1950. The first letter called upon the petitioner to submit the original letter from the Secretary of the Institute of Mechanical Engineer declaring that he had passed in Section E of the examination. In the second letter he was again called upon to forward in original the letter dated 13-9-1949 from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. The enquiry started on 31-3-1951, the enquiring Officer being the Chief Engineer, Mr. D. D. Jaini. The petitioner objected to the enquiry being conducted by Mr. Jaini on the ground that he had conducted the preliminary investigation and he moved this Court under Article 227 for transfer of the enquiry from Mr. Jaini to some other Chief Engineer and order of stay was made by Soni, J., but before the matter could he heard Mr. Jaini had retired and therefore the petition became infructuous. The enquiry was then taken up by Mr. Sud. .
(3.) The petitioner before Mr. Jaini applied for the summoning of seven witnesses in defence. Of these Nos. 2 and 4 in the Annexure 'C' were retired British officers who had left for England and No. 5 was the Secretary of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Nos. 1 and 3 were members of the Punjab Public Service Commission and the 7th was the Enquiring Officer Mr. D. D. Jaini. Another witness was Kishan Singh Gill S. D. O. Nangal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.