- (1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 4.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that in the departmental inquiry the appellant was found guilty of concealment of facts that he was in occupation of government house at Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai and helped his wife to draw house rent allowance fraudulently. It was proved on record that his wife Smt. Hardevi had drawn house rent allowance for the period from 17.9.2005 to 3.5.2007. The Inquiry Officer also found that he failed to submit a certificate while occupying government accommodation that his wife was serving in the Agriculture Department, Haryana at Sonipat and that she was drawing house rent allowance from her parent department. On the basis of the findings determined by the Inquiry Officer, the appellant was served with a memo dated 2.1.2010 proposing the punishment of reduction to lower post of Clerk. Eventually on 9.2.2010 he was reduced to the lower post of Clerk from that of Assistant. The learned Single Judge also found that the appellant failed to disclose in his petition that a suit was filed by him before the Civil Court Sonipat and that the same was withdrawn on 23.2.2010 which was subsequent to the filing of the petition. In the civil suit, he had challenged memo of charges and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of interim relief which was declined on 4.2.2010. He did not pursue the civil suit further and preferred to file the writ petition on 17.2.2010 without withdrawing the same which was eventually withdrawn on 23.2.2010. A statement was made before the Civil Judge that the appellant did not want to pursue the matter any more and he desired to withdraw the same. Placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah v. UOI, 2007 6 SCC 120, the learned Single Judge held that suppression of material facts by way of non-disclosure and the extent of effect this would have on the right of a person to access to justice would dis-entitle such a person for hearing of his grievance on merits.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and infact is wholly ill-advised. There is no room to come for the rescue of the appellant by interfering in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal does not merit admission. Dismissed.;