Multan Singh v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and Others

IN T

Multan Singh The Central Adm Chandigarh & O

CORAM : HO HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The

19.09.2019 pas Chandigarh in O No.1787/CP Vs petitioner for qu of petitioner afte the impugned e order of Appell the petitioner an

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CW Re Da

VERSUS mininstrative Tribunal, Others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURE ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. R.K.Arora, Advocate for the p r. Anandeshwar Gautam, Senior P r. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for U r. Parvesh K. Saini, Advocate for -.-

HARMA, J. e challenge in the present wr sed by the Central Administra OA No.060/00195/2018 titled as Vs. Union of India and Othe uashing the action of the respon er his appointment on the post o enquiry report dated 30.11.2015 ate Authority dated 01.12.2017, nd grant of all the consequential b

JAB AND HARYANA ARH WP-9166 - 2019(O&M) served on :-16.09.2024 ate of Decision : 14.10.2024

....Petitioner

....Respondents ESHWAR THAKUR EEPTI SHARMA petitioner. Panel Counsel, UOI. U.T.Chandigarh. r respondent No.7. rit petition is to the order da ative Tribunal, Chandigarh Ben s "Senior Constable Multan Sin ers", whereby, the prayer of ndents in cancelling the candidat of Assistant Sub Inspector, quash 5, order dated 20.03.2017 and , dismissing the statutory appea benefits, was dismissed.

ated nch, ngh ture hing

2.

The

i) Cha

ii) me ent sele Cla wa

iii) me his by me him his

iv) Cha que

v) con in t

e brief facts of the case are as un The petitioner was appointe andigarh Police. On 18.02.2007, advertisemen posts of Assistant Sub Inspec ant for General Categories Can tire selection process will be ection was as per the standing or ause 7 of the standing order. Ros s issued. The Appeal Board Staf On 15.05.2007, the physi asurement test was carried out. first attempt and long jump in the official of Chandigarh P asured as 32"-34", therefore, he m before the Chairman Selection chest was re-measured and foun A written test was conducte andigarh Police received secre estion paper of the written test h d sold to some candidates. On 21.01.2008, despite infor nducted and selection list was de the waiting list.

nder:- ed as constable on 26.02.2002 nt was published for recruitmen ctors, out of which 10 posts w ndidates. It was stipulated that e vediographed. The criteria rders. The appeal is provided un ster of duties for recruitment of A ff was provided in the same. ical efficiency test and phys The petitioner cleared high jump 3rd attempt, which was announ Police. His chest was wron e preferred an appeal as available n Board-cum-Appellate Board nd out to be 33"-34 ½". ed on 23.12.2007. On 11.01.20 et information disclosing that held on 23.12.2007 was leaked rmation of leakage, interviews w eclared. The petitioner was pla

2 in nt of were for nder ASI ical p in nced ngly e to 008, out were

vi) Cha inte

vii) cam Ind Cha hol viii wa

ix) of lear Cha

x) resp

xi) resp this pet exa

xii)

On 29.01.2008, the petiti .52/HR/2008 before C andigarh Bench, Chandigarh erview. ) In an internal investigation me to be true that the written e d FIR No.31, dated 08.02.2008 dian Penal Code, 1860 was reg andigarh and thereafter, respond ld written examination afresh.

i) Vide order dated 10.03.2008 s disposed of as infructuous. On 26.09.2008, aggrieved ag written examination afresh, sel 2008, OA No.459 of 2008 an rned Chandigarh Administrati andigarh with a prayer to quash The learned Tribunal vide pondent No.3 to review the selec On 08.03.2011, aggrieved pondent No.3 filed CWP Nos.63 s Court. This Court vide order titions and set aside the order of amination was upheld. ) On 05.06.2011, fresh written

ioner filed Original Applicat Central Administrative Tribun for setting aside the test carried out by respondent No.4 examination was indeed leaked , under Section 420, 120-B of gistered at Police Station Sector dent No.4 on 07.03.2008 decided 8, Original Application No.52/20 gainst the above decision of hold lected candidates filed OA No. d OA No.613 of 2008 before ive Tribunal, Chandigarh Ben the decision of respondent No.4 order dated 26.09.2008 direc ction by passing a speaking orde d against the above directio 340, 7148 and 7251 of 2009 bef dated 08.03.2011 allowed the w f learned Tribunal. Cancellation n test was conducted.

tion nal, 4 it out r 3, d to ding nch, . cted er. ons, fore writ

xiii cle Ins xiv dut

18.

xv) Sec Sup num gro me com Cha xvi con me DV

¶03wer xvi sub dec Suk

i) On 16.06.2011 fresh intervie ared the same and was select pector.

v) On 14.10.2011, appointment ty, wherein two dates were

10.2011. ) On 18.10.2011, the petition ctor-9, Chandigarh for joining. perintendent of Police, Chandi mber to the petitioner. And on oss-irregularities in phy asurement test in year 2007 a mplaint was also made to the andigarh Branch.

i) Accordingly, vide order da nstituted a committee to conduc entire photography of the asurement test and other relevan VDs of physical examination and

11.2011 observed that under th re not allowed to join.

ii) On 26.02.2012, Central Bu bmitted their report to responden clared disqualified. At the time khdeep Singh by writing 32"-3

ews were conducted. The petitio ted for the post of Assistant S t letter was issued for reporting mentioned i.e. 16.10.2011 ner reported at Police Headquar On 18.10.2011 itself the Sen igarh also allotted belt/regimen n 18.10.2011 a complaint alleg ysical efficiency physi and 2009 was received. Sim Central Bureau of Investigati ated 20.10.2011 respondent N ct a detailed enquiry by examin physical efficiency test/phys nt record which after reviewing d efficiency test vide its report da hese circumstances the candida ureau of Investigation authori nt No.4 wherein the petitioner w of measurement of his chest by 34" on his chest and was decla

oner Sub g on rter, nior ntal ging ical milar ion, No.3 ning ical ated ates ities was y SI

disq "Re Cha alle ma pet Ap cor cor resp foo resp list xvi dep offi pro rec Pol as offi got Cha

qualified by marking 'D/Q' i emarks" of the same chart, it w airman and was declared qualifi eged by the respondents that on ade by candidates before the Ap titioner did not make an app pellate Board. Hence, the sh rrected by the Appellate Board rroborated by evidence of video-pondents that the petitioner did otage being tampered before the petitioner did not clear the long pondents, despite both the defic t of finally selected candidates fo

iii) The report further stated that partmental misconduct and m ficers/officials of Chandigarh P ocess and the selected candid ommended for major penalty a lice Chandigarh, who remained a well as major penalty and ficers/officials of U.T. Police, Ch t themselves selected in collus andigarh Police for the post of A

in the chart and in the colu was recorded that "appeal heard ied", was found mentioned. Bu n perusal of videography of appe ppellate Board, it surfaced that peal before the Chairman of hort measurement of chest be d on re-measurement is not a f -footage. It is further alleged by d not take any such plea of vid authorities and it also surfaced t g jump in his batch as alleged by ciencies, his name was found in or the post of ASI. t "prima facie commission of gro malpractice on the part of Police is involved in recruitm dates for the post of ASI". against the officers/officials of U associated with recruitment proc cancellation of candidatures handigarh, who were ineligible sion with the officers/officials ASI.

umn d by t as eals eing fact deo-that oss-ment It U.T cess of but

xix can

¶06issu pet

xx) enq xxi par his in 3 4(v xxi AS xxi allo can ent ord xxi wa Pol xxv me

x) On 31.05.2012, pursuant to r ncelled the selection of petitio

06.2012 pursuant to the cancel ued orders initiating the disc titioner. ) On 26.06.2012, the Senior S quiry and observed short-coming

i) On 04.07.2012, the petitione ra 4 (vi) the petitioner stated the chest was re-measured on his a 3rd attempt. In the reply filed b

vi) were admitted.

ii) On 25.09.2012, the other c SI.

iii) On 19.10.2012, learned owed OA No.667/HR/2012 and ncellation of candidature of pet tire aspect. This Court vide o der dated 19.10.2012 passed in O

iv) On 13.02.2013, the cancellat s revoked by Inspector General petitioner submitted represent lice stating the entire sequence o

v) Vide order dated 24.05.2013 asurement of chest was accep

report of the CBI, respondent N oner and 9 other candidates. llation orders the respondents a ciplinary proceedings against Superintendent of Police conduc gs with reference to CBI report. er filed OA No.667/HR/2012 and e entire sequence of facts as to h appeal and he cleared the long ju by the respondents the contents andidates were allowed to join Central Administrative Tribu quashed the order of IGP regard titioner and directed to revisit order dated 11.01.2013 upheld OA No.667/HR/2012. tion of candidature of 10 candida l of Police (IGP). On 19.02.20 tation to Senior Superintendent of facts. 3 plea of the petitioner about his pted but still his candidature w

No.4 On also cted

d in how ump s of n as unal ding ates 013, t of re-

can

¶05ord Cen xxi dat Tri dire con stag xxv pet him xxv as serv upo enq fac xxv app imp wh xxv title

ncelled on the ground that the pe

07.2013, the petitioner filed O der dated 24.05.2013. The sam ntral Administrative Tribunal, C

iv) The petitioner filed CWP N ted 14.11.2014 passed by the bunal. On 27.03.2015 the said w ection to the Enquiry Officer to nducted so far and reopened th ge and conclude the same in acco

v) On 30.11.2015, the enquiry titioner in collusion with some mself selected for the post of ASI

vi) On 29.04.2016, show cause to why the punishment of for vice for increment purpose with on him. On 19.05.2016, the pe quiry was not conducted properl ts.

vii) On 20.03.2017, the punish proved service for increment pu posed upon him. On 20.04.20 hich was rejected on 01.12.2017 b

viii) On 19.02.2018, the petitio ed as "Senior Constable Multan

titioner did not clear long jump. OA No.928/HR/2013, challeng me was dismissed by the learn Chandigarh Bench on 14.11.2014 No.25669 of 2014 challenging or e learned Central Administrat writ petition was disposed of wit o examine the record of the enqu he enquiry proceedings from t ordance with law. was concluded by holding that officials of Chandigarh Police I. notice was issued to the petitio rfeiture of his one year approv h permanent effect be not impo etitioner submitted a reply that ly and stated the entire sequence hment of forfeiture of one y urpose with permanent effect w 017, the petitioner filed an app by respondent No.5. oner filed OA No.060/00195/20 n Singh No.1787/CP Vs. Union

On ging ned . rder tive th a uiry that got oner ved osed e of year was eal, 018,

Ind Cha wa SUBMISSIONS

3.

Fol

i) non app

ii) any of 2

iii) ord

iv) pet con

The

4.

Per no illegality and learned Centra Therefore, the p

5.

We record of this ca

dia and Others" before the andigarh Bench, challenging the s dismissed vide judgment dated present writ petition. S OF THE LEARNED COUN llowing are the submissions of le He contends that orders dat n-speaking and cryptic, which ar plication of mind. He further contends that the y independent inquiry as directe 2014 filed by the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner have not been consid ders. He further contends that OA titioner is dismissed vide impugn nsidering the facts on record. erefore, he prays that the present r contra, learned counsel for the d perversity in the impugned ord al Administrative Tribunal, present writ petition deserves to b e have heard learned counsel for ase.

Central Administrative Tribun e order dated 01.12.2017. The sa d 19.02.2019, which is impugned SEL FOR THE PARTIES earned counsel for the petitioner: ted 30.11.2015 and 20.03.2017 re based on finding of CBI with e petitioner is found guilty with ed by this Court in CWP No.256 e objections and grounds raised dered before passing the impugn A No.060/00195/2018 filed by ned order dated 19.02.2019 with t petition be allowed. e respondents contends that ther der dated 19.02.2019 passed by Chandigarh Bench, Chandiga be dismissed. r the parties and perused the wh

nal, ame d in :- are hout hout d by ned hout e is arh.

6.

The Constable Mul reproduced as un "21 vid Inq doc exa app sele per has mer acc ma

¶22disc per can foll rec giv tha

e relevant portion of the OA No ltan Singh No.1787/CP Vs. nder:-

¶1We note that the selection pr deography evidence was assessed quiry Officer who has made his cumentary evidence and evide amination of witnesses to es plicant. The inquiry held the ap ection process is preceded by m rsons in the select list and based e Tribunal in an OA filed by one s been recast by including the c rit and a replacement of the c count of discrepancies in the sele de thereon. The applicant has participated e appellate and the revision ciplinary rules. This is a case rpetuated which vitiated the sel ndidates. This has been establis lowed by a departmental inqu cording of the physical measure ven a chance to defend himself i at he did not use this oppo

o.060/00195/2018 titled as "Sen Union of India and Others" rocedure was videographed and d by the CBI and separately by observation after appreciating ence produced in the process stablish the charges against pplicant guilty of the charge. T making offers of appointment to d on the order dated 04.04.2016 e Sh. Suresh Kumar, the Select L andidates who are next in order candidates who were excluded ection process and the appointm d in the inquiry and has also u nary rights provided under e where some perversity had b lection process in respect of so shed in the form of a CBI inqu uiry and a perusal of the vid ement test. The applicant has b in the inquiry and there is no c ortunity. The cancellation of

nior " is of The 6 of List r of on ment used een ome uiry deo been

can a C bef OA only nec opp opp can one effe aut find inq con aut tha

¶24dism ANALYSIS OF

7.

A p Tribunal, Chand impugned order

ndidature of the applicant theref CBI inquiry followed by a depa fore this Bench earlier as cited A, and even the High Court did ly gave an opportunity in the cessary. It is not a case where th portunity to establish his case f portunity, he cannot now turn ar ncellation of his candidature an e year of approved service for i ect. The Tribunal cannot take ove thority. The truth or otherwise o dings is a matter for the disci quiry was conducted by a nclusions are based on evidence e task of holding the inquiry thority to reach a finding of fac at finding or conclusion should b For the foregoing discussion, missed. There shall be no order F THE RECORD perusal of the above shows that digarh Bench, Chandigarh did n rs dated 20.03.2017 and 01.12.20

fore has been made on the basis artmental inquiry. The matter w d in pre-paras which dismissed d not set aside the recruitment, form of re-inquiry, if conside he applicant has not been given for appointment. Having used round and pray for setting aside nd the punishment of forfeiture increment purpose with perman er the function of the disciplin of the charges or correctness of iplinary authority to go into. T competent officer, findings a e, and the authority entrusted w had the jurisdiction, power a ct or conclusion. Suffice it is to e based on some evidence. this OA, being devoid of merit as to costs. the learned Central Administrat not discuss anything regarding

017.

s of was but ered n an e of nent nary f the The with say t, is

8.

A p witnesses exami

9.

Ins Chandigarh in computer, in w qualify long jum In the third att qualified the lon

10.

As Police Lines, Se ASI Chandigarh HC Ram Dhan R B.S.Chadha was police officials u him, he used to was conducted. of long jump wi He further state seen that on 1 Constable Mult attempts as per t 24:50 candidate distance of long correct and noth that the finishin

perusal of the enquiry report da ined in enquiry proceedings, dep spector Jasminder Singh, I/ n his statement stated that he which chest No.46 (green colou mp in first two attempts as per t tempt as per time 24:50 cand ng jump and it was personally me per statement of J.S.Cheema ector 26 for long jump event in h Police as supervisory officer an RTC and HC Gurnam Singh RT s the overall in-charge of the lon used to bring candidate along w line up the candidate as per their He further stated that he perso ith the help of inch tape and entr ed that he had seen videography

15.05.2007 to 18.07.2007 che tan Singh No.1787/CP did no timing 18:48 & 24:39, respective e chest No.46 (green colour) g jump was personally measur hing is increased or decreased in ng and landing point was marke

ated 30.11.2015 shows that all posed in favour of the petitioner. C Operations Cell, Sector had seen the videography in ur) namely Multan Singh did timing 18:48 & 24:39 respectiv didate chest No.46 (green colo easured by Inspector J.S.Cheema (Retd. DSP), he was deputed recruitment process for the post nd at that time S.I Jasminder Sin TC were also deputed with him. ng jump event, whenever concern with the documents for long jump r chest number and long jump ev onally used to measure the dista ry in event chart was made by h y of long jump in the computer est No.46 (green colour) nam ot qualify long jump in first t ely. In the third attempt as per ti qualified the long jump and red by him, which was absolut the measurement. He further sta ed by white powder and both li

26, not ely. our) a. d in t of ngh, Sh. ned p to vent ance him. mely two ime tely ated

were 3" to 4" bro was approved by

11.

Ins stated that he w recruitment pro SSP/Operations the record/proce him and Inspect produce the can the Chairman fo of Multan Singh per the procedu remarks that "A Inspector Kewa column and Mu 33"-34 ½". All column were ma of cameras wer measurement of electronic equip there is no recor Multan Singh.

12.

As U.T.Chandigar measurement o

oad. The jump was measured w y Sh. B.S.Chadha, who was sittin spector S.P.S Sondhi, EOW, U was deputed for appeal board sta ocess of ASI, Chandigarh Po was the Chairman/Head of the eedings Constable Multan Sing tor Kewal Krishan for measurem ndidate before the appeal board. or re-measurement of his chest a h was measured and he was decla ure Inspector Kewal Krishan ma Appeal heard by Chairman and re al Krishan and Shri. Dinesh Bha ultan Singh was declared qualifie the process of appeal and re-me ade in the presence of the Chairm e installed at different places an f chest by appeal board no video pment was installed at appeal bo rd of recording in respect of re-per the statement of Inspecto rh, Multan Singh (petitioner) ap f his chest and by order of C

with the help of other officials an ng at a distance of 3 to 4 feet. UT, Chandigarh in his statem ff with Inspector Kewal Krishan olice and Sh. Dinesh Bhatt I appeal board. He stated that as gh S/o Man Singh appeared bef ment of chest and it was their duty Multan Singh was produced bef and by order of the Chairman ch ared qualified by the Chairman. de an entry in the result sheet w echecked and found qualified". att Chairman put their initials in ed as per his chest re-measurem easurement of chest and entry in man. He further stated that numb nd he stated that at the time of o camera, still camera or any ot oard counter. He further stated t -measurement of chest in respec or Kewal Krishan, Traffic St ppeared before the Chairman for Chairman Inspector S.P.Sondhi

nd it ment n in IPS, per fore y to fore hest As with He, ment bers f re-ther that t of aff, re-re-

measured the ch found 33" x 34 made an entry in rechecked & fou

13.

A p chest examinati also examined, w the appeal board

14.

As at long jump co qualified the ea jump and if the given to him. I declared as qua chances, he was that he had see Constable Mult colour) was jum cleared the long J.S.Cheema pers him qualified. H HC Ram Dhan w

15.

As U.T.Chandigar duty in connecti

hest of Multan Singh (petitioner 4 ½". And as per the procedur n the result sheet with the remark und 33" - 34 ½". perusal of the record also show on before the filing of the appea who stated his chest to be 32"-34 d his chest was measured as 33" per statement of Sh. Gurnam S ounter and he was assigned work arlier events. Every candidate candidate has cleared it in first If the candidate had cleared in r alified. The candidate who did s disqualified and removed from en the videography dated 15.0 tan Singh sitting in front of him mping and did not clear the long g jump event in the third chanc sonally measured the long jump He further stated that his duty wa was deputed on the other end. per statement of Sh. B.S.C rh, he was deputed to supervis ion with recruitment for the pos

r) and as per criteria his chest w re he, S.P.S.Sondhi and Chairm ks that "Appeal heard by Chairm ws that the witnesses regarding al by petitioner Multan Singh w 4" and after re-measurement bef - 34 ½". Singh, on 15.05.2007 his duty w k to line up the candidates who h was given three chances for lo attempt then no further chance w remaining two chances then he w d not clear the long jump in th m long jump area. He further sta

05.2007 in the computer in wh m was having chest No.46 (gr g jump in first two chances but e. He further stated that Inspec p and shouted as 14'-4" and mark as to hold inch tape at one end Chadha, DSP-IRB, Sarangp e long jump and high jump ev st P/ASI in Chandigarh Police.

was man man, were fore was had ong was was hree ated hich reen t he ctor ked pur, vent

further stated th two attempts in declared him qu covering 14.4 fe in the video clip initials acknowl

16.

Aft following charg approval before " Sin Com Sin No. CB Mu pos disq "D app Son ma hav

at Multan Singh serving as cons n long jump event and as per vi ualified as the candidate cleare eet. Mr. J.S.Cheema, announced pping, thereafter he made entry ledging Multan Singh as success ter examining all the witnes ges against Multan Singh (petit the competent authority on 01.0 From the evidence brought ngh No.1787/CP, is framed. mmandant-IRB-cum-enquiry off ngh) that as per D.I.G/CBI, .0414/CBI/ACB/CHG dated 26 BI, ACB, Chandigarh in SIR RSC ultan Singh No.1787/CP S/o Sh. st of ASI under General Categ qualified at the time of measu DQ" meaning disqualified in the c However, in column "Rema peal heard by chairman and wa ndhi. However, in the DVD c de by candidate before Appella ve appealed before the Chairman

table in Chandigarh Police failed deo clipping Inspector J.S.Chee ed his long jump in third attem d in his loud voice very much cl in the prescribed form and put ful candidate. ses the Enquiry Officer fram tioner), which were submitted

05.2015:- on file, charge against you Mul I, Ram Nivas Meena, I fficer hereby charge you (Mul Chandigarh report vide Le

6.03.2012 (of the Head of Bran CHG2011A0012 held) that you, Man Singh, who is selected for gory of Recruitment – 2007, w urement of chest and was mar chart. arks" of the chart mentioned t as declared qualified by S.I S. containing videography of appe late Board, you did not appear n.

d in ema mpt lear his med for ltan IPS, ltan etter nch, Ct. was rked that P.S eals

clea som you Ass but Cha mea on y neg mem

17.

Rep everything was The following c IRB-cum-EO, U

"Co Sin Suk as men by Ho

Even then you attended all o ar long jump in your batch an me other batch but could not cle ur name figured in final list of sistant Sub-Inspector. The CBI/ACB/CHD stated in t got yourself selected in collusio andigarh Police conducting t asurement test, for the commiss your part as seen in the video re The above act on your part gligence, indiscipline, unbecom mber of disciplined force." ply to the charge-sheet was explained therein regarding the conclusion was drawn by Sh.Ram U.T.Chandigarh:- onclusion:- As per the proceeding and d ngh was disqualified at the tim khdeep Singh by writing 32" & disqualified by marking "D/Q ntioned in the column "Remark Chairman and was declare wever, in the DVD containing

other events. You again could nd made two further attempts w ear the long jump. However, La selected candidates for the pos n its report that you were ineligib on with the officers and officials the said physical endurance a ion gross departmental miscond ecording of Long Jump. t tantamount to grave miscondu ming of a police officer being submitted by the petitioner chest measurement and long jum m Nivas Meena, IPS, Commanda documents on record Const. Mul me of measurement of chest by 34" on his chest. He is mention Q" in the chart and it is furt ks" of the chart that "appeal he ed qualified by SI S.P.S.Sond g videography of appeals made

not with ater t of ble, s of duct uct, g a mp. ant-ltan y SI ned ther eard dhi.

can to oth clea col tha poi eve be/ in v dis him lan atte jum Sin

18.

On why punishmen purpose with pe

ndidates before the Appellate Bo have appealed before the Chai her events. He again could not d made 02 further attempts wit ar the long jump. In view of the facts & circum llected during verification includ at Multan Singh s/o Man Singh c int (whiteline) as well as landi ent. This is clear cut sign of disq Since, he had fallen back the /should have been measured from video. Insp. J.S.Cheema stated that tance of 3 feet from the landi mself claimed that he was sittin nding pit. The running speed in which empt also suggest that under no mp 14 feet without touching takin In view of above, I am of ngh is guilty of the charge. n 29.04.2016, a show cause notic nt of forfeiture of one year o ermanent effect may not be imp

oard, Multan Singh did not app irman. Even then he attended clear long jump event in his ba th some other batch but could mstances, scrutiny of the docume ding DVDs, it has been establis clearly seen touching the taking ing point (whiteline) of long ju qualification in third/last attempt erefore, distance covered needed m the hip marks seen at jumping t DSP B.S.Chadda was sitting a ing pit whereas DSP B.S.Chad ng in tent 15 feet away from h Multan Singh is seen in last/th o circumstances he or anyone co ng off and landing point/s. the opinion that constable Mul ce was issued to the petitioner a of approved service for increm posed upon him. Reply to the sh

pear all atch not ents hed g off ump t. d to g pit at a dda hird ould ltan s to ment

cause notice wa dated 20.03.20 U.T.Chandigarh approved the p increment purpo

19.

The before the Dire

01.12.2017 dism orders dated 30 petitioner by fil Singh No.1787/ Administrative T the learned Trib CONCLUSION

20.

A p been discussed b

21.

A p witnesses whic documents, show has wrongly de dated 20.03.201 mind and with admitted by th application of m

as submitted by the petitioner. Af 017 Senior Superintendent o h, on the basis of enquiry rep punishment of forfeiture of o ose with permanent effect. e petitioner filed an appeal ag ector General of Police, U.T.C missed the same by passing the n

0.11.2015, 20.03.2017 and 01 ling OA No.060/00195/2018 tit 7/CP Vs. Union of India and O Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Ch bunal vide its judgment dated 19. N perusal of the Original Applica by the learned Tribunal while dis perusal of the whole record, ou ch are discussed above befor w that the petitioner was a quali eclared him guilty of the charg 17, 01.12.2017 and 19.09.2019 out taking into consideration t he members of the recruitmen mind on the part of Enquiry Offic

fter considering the same vide or of Police, Security & Traf port without application of m ne year of approved service gainst the order dated 20.03.20 Chandigarh, who vide order da non-speaking and cryptic order. T .12.2017 were challenged by tled as "Senior Constable Mul Others" before the learned Cen handigarh, which was dismissed

02.2019. ation also shows that nothing smissing the same. ut of which the statements of re the Enquiry Officer and ified candidate and Enquiry Offi ge as referred to above and ord are passed without application the evidence on record, which nt board. This shows total n cer.

rder ffic, mind for ated The ltan ntral d by has ficer ders n of h is non-

22.

In Administrative No.060/00195/2 Union of Indi

01.12.2017 pass petition is allow

23.

Pen

(SURESHWAR

JUDGE

October 14, 202 tripti

view of the above, order dated Tribunal, Chandigarh B 2018 titled as "Senior Constab ia and Others" and orders d sed by the authorities concerned wed. nding applications, if any, also st R THAKUR)

Whether speaking/non-speak

d 19.09.2019 passed by the Cen Bench, Chandigarh in le Multan Singh No.1787/CP dated 30.11.2015, 20.03.2017 d, are set aside and the present w tand disposed off.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king : Speaking : Yes

ntral OA Vs.