S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) The petitioner Hoshiar Singh in the present writ petition has made the following substantive prayers:- (i) Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto for quashing the appointment of the respondent No.5 to the post of Chief Inspector being based on bogus experience certificate and result of fraud and as he was ineligible and unqualified for the said post as per the statutory Recruitment Rules and despite being ineligible candidate, he has been selected/appointed to the public post in complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khub Ram v. Dalbir Singh & Others, reported as 2015 (3) SCT 74 (SC) (Annexure P-17) whereby the selection of the similarly situated Chief Inspector pertaining to the same selection, which was quashed by this Hon'ble Court, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (ii) Further quash all the promotion orders to various posts including the order dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P-14) whereby the respondent No.5 was granted promotion to the post of General Manager illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent No.1 because despite he having been found guilty in many cases and despite various deptt. enquiries pending against him, he has been ordered to be promoted to the high post of General Manager illegally and arbitrarily; (iii) And further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to conduct the fair and high level probe into this illegal and arbitrary selection and subsequent promotions of the respondent No.5 after got registering of FIR under appropriate provisions of IPC and take appropriate penal/legal action against him in accordance with law; (iv) It is further prayed that the respondent may kindly be restrained from releasing all the retiral dues to the respondent No.5 during the pendency of the present writ petition as he is going to retire on 31.05.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) The petitioner is a retired employee of Haryana Roadways, Jind. During service, he remained the office bearer of Anti-Corruption Union formed by the employees of the Transport Department to fight with the corrupt practices of the officers in the department. When some case of illegal practise was exposed from the records, in such matters, the voice was raised by the Union. After retirement, the petitioner being a public spiritual person, it is submitted, has been raising his individual voice against the illegalities and irregularities committed by the Haryana Transport Department. While he was in service it is stated that he unearthed the bogus check way bills scams in the Jind Depot of the Haryana Roadways in the year 1999. In the present case, it is submitted by the petitioner that he has no personal interest or grudge against Udeyvir Singh (respondent No.5). His source of income is his monthly pension. He seeks indulgence of this Court in the larger public interest to highlight that as to how Udeyvir Singh (respondent No.5) was initially inducted in service against the post of Chief Inspector despite being ineligible and unqualified. Subsequently, he was promoted to the responsible posts. Despite the fact that the enquiries were pending against him, it is alleged that Udeyvir Singh (respondent No.5) managed to grab very high and responsible post of General Manager in the Transport Department.
(3.) According the petitioner, it is a case of an employee whose initial appointment was de hors the recruitment rules and based on fraud in which he was held liable to the charges by the Vigilance Bureau of Haryana and departmental action was recommended against him but still despite having held guilty in the departmental inquiries against him on the complaints filed by the petitioner, no action penalizing him was taken by the State of Haryana through Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Department of Transport, Civil Secretariat, Haryana (respondent No.1) and State Transport Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2) and instead of taken penal action against him, it is alleged that he was promoted to the post of General Manager vide impugned order dated 4.7.2013 (Annexure P-14). Now, he was being allowed to retire on 31.5.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation without taking any penal action against him in pursuance of the departmental inquiries holding him guilty of the charge.;