M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) On September 13, 2004, the instant petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and a direction was issued to release the pension due to the petitioner for the service rendered by him in Industries Department. This Court also fixed one month period for release of the arrears along with interest as per rules. The petitioner has retired from service in the year 1999. In para 14 of the written statement filed by the Director of Industries, Haryana, a patently incorrect stand was taken with the averments that 'no case of Sh. Shyam Dass Arya was routed through this department and even not in the notice of this Department.' The Division Bench expressed unhappiness with the kind of reply filed by the Director Industries, by denying any connection with its employee Sh.Shyam Dass Arya who in fact was an employee of the Industries Department and pension to him could not have been released possibly without the necessary and clear verification from that Department. The attitude of the Director has been commented upon to be casual as he failed to even verify the factual position before filing the reply. While allowing the writ petition, their Lordships of the Division Bench has made the following observations:- "In view of the conduct of the respondents, we are satisfied that it is a fit case for imposing costs on the erring officials. However, before doing so, we would like the explanation from the Director of Industries, Haryana. The writ petition stands allowed. However, for the purpose of considering the explanation of the Director of Industries, Haryana, the case is adjourned to 27.9.2004." Mr. Apoorva Kumar Singh, IAS, Director of Industries, Haryana, has filed an affidavit dated October 4, 2004. With regard to para 14 of the written statement of Civil Writ Petition No. 12283 of 2003, he has stated on oath as under:- "That in view of submissions made in para No.14 of the reply given in CWP No. 12283 of 2003, it is submitted that the fact that no case of Shri Shyam Dass Arya routed through this department and even not in the notice of this department, has been submitted inadvertently by the department and there was no intention of any official to harm the petitioner as such." It is thus evident that the view expressed by the Division Bench in its order dated September 13, 2004, is absolutely correct and eventually the truth has been stated in the affidavit. Therefore, the factual position as depicted in the aforementioned order has been accepted by the Director Industries.
(2.) In view of the above, we hold that Mr. Apoorva Kumar Singh, IAS, has adopted a casual attitude while filing the written statement in this Court which might have ended up in the dismissal of the writ petition. We deprecate the casualness in the drafting of reply by such like officer and hope and trust that such a casual attitude would not be repeated in future. The aforementioned anguish has to be expressed for the reason that the machinery of justice would be adversely affected if casual attitude adopted by the officers of the State is allowed to go unnoticed. Whenever, a written statement is filed by the State through its officers, this Court ordinarily takes it as a gospel truth and does not require its verification by summoning the record. Therefore, pointed attention of the officers of the State is required to be invited to this type of tendency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we caution the officers, who have filed the erroneous reply, to be careful in future and if such like casual attitude is repeated then this Court would be compelled to take a more serious view. We also saddle the officer- Mr. Apoorva Kumar Singh with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by him personally without crediting to the State exchequer within a period of one month from today.
(3.) A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, to circulate amongst all Departments with the following instructions:- i) Casual approach should not be adopted by the officer signing the written statement/ affidavits regarding the facts mentioned therein. ii) The official record should generally be checked and confirmed before making any averment of fact in the affidavits/ written statement to be furnished in legal proceedings. iii) No attempt should be made to distort the actual facts with the sole objective to defeat the rights of any person, who has approached the Court for enforcing his legal rights, an attempt should be made to bring the actual facts before the Court to enable it to administer justice. iv) Concerned dealing official should be generally consulted before making an averment to ensure that no misleading or wrong statement is made in the documents to be submitted in the Court. v) While signing the verification, the officer is to ensure as to which paras therein are based on his own knowledge as derived from record and which paras are believed by him to be true and the source of belief should generally be specified in the verification. C.W.P. No. 12283 of 2003 [5] The matter stands disposed of in the above terms. ;