DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) BY this judgment, three petitions bearing CWP Nos.3019 of 2012, 3271 of 2012 and 3275 of 2012 shall be disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.3019 of 2012.
(2.) THE Haryana Public Service Commission i.e respondent No.3 (here -in -after referred to as 'the Commission') issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment of four posts of Environmental Engineer in response to the requisition sent by Haryana State Pollution Control Board i.e respondent No.2 (here -in -after referred to as 'the Board'). The upper age limited for applying the said post was 40 years. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by providing five years' relaxation in upper age limited for the candidates who were in government service. The petitioner was approximately 44 years of age and was not eligible as per conditions of age prescribed in the advertisement but he became eligible in view of the corrigendum. Subsequently, a relaxation of five years' was given to the candidates who were already in government job. The petitioner applied through proper channel. He was selected on the said post and joined the department on 13.12.2004 on the basis of appointment letter issued to him. Subsequently, various FIRs were registered against Members and Chairman of the Commission, where the allegations of irregularities and illegalities were there in selection of the candidates of various posts. An FIR No.12 dated 05.09.2007 was registered under Sections 420, 120 -B IPC, 467, 468, 471 and 13(1)(d) and 13(II) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and others, alleging that the corrigendum issued by the Commission by giving relaxation in upper age limit up to 45 years was illegal and just to give benefit to the petitioner and two others, who were selected along with the petitioner. It was also the allegation that the Members and Chairman of the Commission had wrongly selected the petitioner, whereas, he was not eligible. Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 19.03.2008 by the Chairman of the Board. The other two Environmental Engineers, who were selected and appointed along with the petitioner, were also suspended. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued under Rule 7 of HCS (P&A) Rules 1987 and enquiry proceedings were accordingly initiated against them. In the enquiry conducted by Vigilance Department, the allegations were proved. The charges were framed against the petitioner which were also challenged by way of filing Crl. Misc. No.M -1513 of 2010. The enquiry report was sent to the respondent - Board. After giving opportunity of personal hearing by the Punishing Authority, the petitioner was removed from the post of Environmental Engineer vide order dated 10.02.2012, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The order of removal has been challenged by the petitioner by raising various arguments like he was eligible after issuance of corrigendum and has no role to play in issuance of same and as such, he cannot be held liable for the same. There was no concealment about the age and only when he became eligible in view of corrigendum, he applied through proper channel and was selected on the post.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having no role in any manner either in issuing the corrigendum or in the selection. As per letter sent by the respondent -Board, the relaxation of upper age was also given to other Government employees and not only this time but earlier also, the relaxation was given. Neither the selection nor appointment of the petitioner has been challenged. The petitioner was fully eligible as per educational qualification and was given age relaxation in view of corrigendum. Learned counsel also submits that the age relaxation was also given in case of other similar situated officers. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner was accepted by the respondent -Board, wherein, the petitioner was found innocent and the allegations levelled in the charge -sheet were not proved.;