Bejinder Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS
CWP-20752-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 19.08.2025
1. CWP-20752-2016 BEJINDER SINGH
...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
...Respondents
AND
2. CWP-20776-2016 GAJENDER SINGH
...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Jasandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-20752-2016.
2.
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of memo dated 14.10.2011 whereby his selection has been cancelled. 3.
The petitioner pursuant to advertisement applied for the post of Constable-Driver. He participated in the interview held on 24.05.2010. He was issued appointment letter. The respondent conducted verification DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.08.19 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-20752-2016 -2of driving licence dated 18.08.2003. The said licence was issued from the office of RTO, Agra. On verification, it was found that driving licence is fake and it was never issued by RTO, Agra. The verification of driving licence was conducted of all the selected candidates and it was found that there are 47 candidates who were having fake/forged driving licence. 39 selected candidates were arrested. FIR No.304 dated 16.11.2011 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal was registered against the petitioner as well as other accused.
4.
There is nothing on record disclosing that driving licence of the petitioner was genuine. The respondent conducted verification and as per report of RTO, Agra, driving licence was fake. In the absence of contrary evidence led by petitioner, this Court cannot conclude that driving licence was genuine or report sought by respondent was nonreliable. As petitioner was not possessing genuine driving licence and respondent has to lodge FIR against petitioner, there is reason to intervene with the impugned order.
5.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
6.
Pending application(s), if any stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 19.08.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.08.19 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document