High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/21755/2019allowed

Ritu Lather v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-05-19Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj35 pages

"# !$%&%"'(

)

( ,) * - *

#$ % !

& '# %

()$*

, - * .

)

+ - -

./0/1

2 3, ' 4%

- 3* ! $ % *

52 6 //0!

% /1' 7

4 ! ' ! %

! - 4

8! 4 !

2 3 8

6 + " %9!! '

//8$ % *

52 6 //0 3 3! !

!//0

- 3* 4

.//(/1 :

! " " " % 9!! )6 + " %9!! !

- *- !$ % *

52 6

/1/;/1 " ! " % !

4 - - )

% ! 4!

! #

4%//;/18

< '

1 ' !

% - 3* !$ % *

52 6 = !

>= ,,/,/(

/, /1 / ,;

,0 ; /36 != *

. !

4 -

- 6 $ 8

! % !! '

: %'

4' !

: %

4% "%

! - 6 $

' !

- '

4% "

- $ % /0/, $

- ' --

- 3*- $ % *

52 6 % /18

4 ./;/1 - - - !

- 3* !$ % *

52 6 //0 !

% /1 8 !

0/;/1 4% "

- 6 $ %

;. * * ' %4

//; - 8 !! ! * ! % 1/;/1

% #

!$ % " %" + %

- !8

7 !

- 3*

) ./0/1

>=' -

(/(/0

% .

///)34

;

-' - ! -

- ! %

! % (/(/0 ' 47 -4!

$ -* *? ;1; !/0

! - '

% ' % 4% $ - *

/./0/0 " 4

' !

% /1 = !

! *? ;1; !/0

4+ ! ! - % *9="@1

! *3,(;3*?3/!

' ' !'

' ' '

1/,/ 8

! !

!$ % -

(/(/0

' #

!$ % ! -

' !! -

./// =

(/(/0 2 '

% ' $

- A*<

%- %8'

8 !

8 !$ % !

+ $ % *

52 6 !

- 3

(

- A*< 1 ! !//0

-' -- 3 i Service record with 70% weightage particular reference to or ACRs for the last 8 years 70 marks ii Relevant experience 13% weightage or 13 marks iii Academic achievements 13% weightage or 13 marks iv Appreciation letter(s) 04% weightage issued on the basis of or ACR as per Government 04 marks instructions during the last 8 years B ' --

+ ' 4 - !

- !

4 *<!

% /3(C/(3, /031

1/,/1 /,/1 4!

3 !! /;/1 4'

,/1// !

% /3(C/(3 ,

///!

% /0318

4 ! ! + - 42 '

6 % --

- A*<

./0/1 '

4 ! 4!

./0/1

' '

+ !

!0;(B'

,;/( 8 3 Sr.No. Service record with ACRs Marks particular reference to the ACR's for the last 8 years The petitioner is 2011-12 (Outstanding) entitled for the 2012-13 (Outstanding) marks as per ACR's 2013-14 (Outstanding) of 8 years 2014-15 (Outstanding) 2015-16 (Outstanding) 2016-17 (Outstanding) 2017-18 (Outstanding) 2018-19 (Outstanding) Remarks Since the petitioner has 68.60 completed 8 years 6 months up to the cut-off date i.e. 12.07.2019, she is entitled for marks 68.60, considering ACRs outstanding for

;

years 228 days and good for 137 days as decided by Government criteria.

Relevant Experience Since the petitioner has completed 8 years 6 months up to the cut-off date i.e. 12.07.2019, she is not entitled for marks under this head of experience.

Academic Before service - LLB 3.5 (2nd Division) in 2010 Achievements year.

0.5 After service - LLM (2nd Division) in 2012 (being additional post graduation degree) Appreciation letters For the first issued on the basis of appreciation letter two ACR's as per

(2) marks would be Government assigned and thereafter Instructions during mark would be the last 8 years.

assigned for each subsequent appreciation letter subject to maximum marks.

Total Marks 76.6 87.5% of Total 67.025

- - -! 4 '

-% -

* *

/ ?

4 !

' - 3* 4% !! * ! % ! $ % *

52 //0 4 - 4 % =

! 3 : !

4! %

- ) =

* ! %+!

- 4 " " % 9!! )6 + " %9!! ""9)6"9!

!$* 52 6 .//(/14% 0/,/1 8 #

: ! - 4" " % 9!! )6 +" %9!! ""9)6"9 /;/1'

!. - 4 '

!! ! * ! % /;/1 !

4 - "

: % /). -

! >= -

/(/(

-' 4

- 6 !

'4 4%" - /0/, !!

' ! 4

!! - 4

4%" !! !! !6"9 6 ' '

! !! 8

4 4 4% - 6 4!

* !7

'% 44+ ='

4%* 7

- % =

- ; !$ % *

/, !

! - 52: !.

///)3 '

! : % '!

- % ! - *

: %

(/(/0

% ! .

///)3 -

' !! '

' 47 ! - *?

;1; !/0 '

/./0/0' % - -

(/(/0 - %8 '

' % ' '

1/,/ $

4 2

- -

!! !

4 !

!$* 52 6 8

< ' -%

4%" = ! ! !

- - !

% /3( /(3, /031

% /3( /(3,

% /031 ' +

- -

; $ % *

/, !

/.//1 /0/// ' ' - 8 %

- ' % !

% /031' /// $ '

-4 ! 3 !!

= !

4% *

' 4% $ % 4

! 4

% 4 ! 4%"% % #

$ %

-% ! - 4

8 % 4 -!

: %! 4

)

* *

4 ! 4%

' '

%4 4

4 % )

-' 4

=' ! %

! ' 7- !$

<4 *

' ' %)

- 4 4

% ' -3 %

-3

- 4 -

4 4 = !

/.//1 /0/// %

4 -

-=! 4

' - 4 4

$* 52 6 !//0 -

' !!' - '

*? ;1;3/0

! (/(/0 %4 %E

!$ % 8 ' -

' !!

.///$4

- 3*

- ' -

' 4

4! -

4 % -

- '

- %

- -

- %4 4

4 4 - 4= !

! -

' !!

% !

$ % *

/,$

4 4 -

00% %"'1 +$ &

4% *

./0/1

8 *

//0/.

' %

+ -

% '

%4 8 $ % 4

//0/.8' '

% =

,/0/.

' '

+ -

> %

///.

4% *

4 '

% 4

' ! ' !

4 - 4 - -

! '

4 4

8 '

/0/;/ '

3 ' !

- ! - %

-) -3 -

4% '%

!! /1/(/( 4 ! ! - - -

' %

: % =

>= , ,/,/( 4

//./(

4 !

6 $

' !

7- .//0/ * :

' ' = ! !

6 + " %9!!

6 '

% - ; ! $ % *

10;

3(5*"3 3/.)0,/1/.

!// -

! : % #

! -

' !!

(/(/0='+

' % % 4% $ - * !

$ % % ! -

' !! -

' !!= !

% !.

///)3 4%

% * # //010 /1/ ! % '

0/1/ # //0,,1.

(

+ E

% -

7 - !

4 - @* !$* 52 6

! >= , ,/,/( -

-4

/;/1

%4 -!

%! 4% - 6

-4 !

=' - - 6 4

% /;

>= ' '

4%"

- 6 8

' - -

% !!

!>=

4 4

- -

4% *

1.* *

.1 * *

-' !

8 47

- '

= ! 4 ! ! -

4 - %

- %

(/(/0 8

! %4 %4%$ -*

/./0/0

-' --

$! - ' '

4%$

<4 * !

-) 4 4

! - )

! ! -9

- ' -

- % 4

-' -

4 ! !

4 7= !

4% #

.///

% !! ! -

' !! '

% !$ % *

/, $

4 4 ! %

4 ' !

4 - 4 E

! 47

;

! %

' 4

! !

- 4

* *

!! - 4 %

! //0 ' ! - %

- '

- - ' -% E

4! ! *

4% !

, '

4 '

+ - /1 % C

47- *

- '

' 4

+ ! -

./0/18 3 "On the above stated subject vigilance department vide their letter dated 12.07.2019 informed that until inquiry against you in FIR No.26, dated 26.06.2015 is not decided till then it is not possible to clearance certificate to the official. Apart from this vide office order dated 15.05.2018, recovery of Rs.3,93,000/- is ordered against you and your one annual increment is stopped under Rule 7. Against the above said order you had filed CWP No.17927 of 2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.08.2018 stayed the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by this office. Therefore, due to the above said matter your name is not sent for nomination to Register-C in HCS."

8 '

- 4%

- !

- 3* $* 52 6 3

/;/1

' >= ,,/,/( !

4 + C

(/(/0

% ! .

///)3

-' -

' !!4 -

= ' +

/./0/0 *? ;1; /0

$ % *

52 6 //0

3 "14(1) The secretary to government in the Development and Panchayat Department shall, by a date to be determined by the Government, prepare a list of District Development and Panchayat Officers / Block Development and Panchayat Officers not more than five times the number of vacancies and submit the same for the consideration of a committee with Chief Secretary as Chairman and two such other officers as members, as may be nominated by the government from time to time: Provided that unless the Government otherwise directs regarding the age, the name of a person shall be submitted who:- (a) (i) has completed eight years continuous government service (ii) has not attained the age of forty-five years on or before the date on which the names are required to be submitted to the Committee, and (iii) is not facing disciplinary proceedings against whom action is not being contemplated; and (iv) is clear from vigilance angle;

(b) Is a graduate of a recognized University.

(2) the committee mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall consider all such names and prepare a list equal to twice the number of vacancies of persons considered suitable for being entered in register C. The list shall be sent to the commission for recommending, in order of merit and equal to the number of vacancies, the most suitable persons entered in the list, for being selected as candidates for entry into register C, and thereafter the names of the persons so selected shall be entered in the register C."

: '

/0%

- !(%

' : 4 4 *

4 ! %

- - '

- -=

- 3* ='

' 4

! ! % ! 4%

( ' 2 3 "That the Vigilance Department conducted a preliminary inquiry No. 04/13 and recommended vide letter dated 11.05.2015 for registration of an FIR against the petitioner. Accordingly, an FIR No.

dated 26.06.2015 u/s

406,409,420,467,468,471,120B IPC and sec 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner. This in itself prima facie leads to inference that criminal proceedings were being contemplated against the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner in order to halt further investigation in the said FIR, i.e., submission of challan, etc. against her, moved an application to the State Vigilance Bureau for re investigation. The DSP, Vigilance after re inquiry submitted a report vide letter dated 22.08.2016 stating that no incriminating evidence came on record which prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offences, though it has been reported by the DSP, Vigilance in his report that all other officials of the office of BDPO were involved in the commission of aforesaid offences.

It is relevant to mention here that the said cancellation report has been submitted by SVB before the competent court of jurisdiction and the same is yet to be accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, all the funds released/ expenditure incurred out of Government funds in the o/o BDPO are always authorised by the BDPO being the drawing and disbursing authority of his office. Therefore, the re-investigation report submitted by DSP Vigilance cannot be said to the final step in this matter.

The said report is also subject to acceptance by the competent Court, Therefore, till the time said cancellation report is dully accepted by the court of competent Jurisdiction, it cannot be said that no criminal action is being contemplated against the petitioner Besides, the petitioner was also charge sheeted u/r 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) 2016 for major penalty on account of causing loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 3,93,000/-and after departmental inquiry she was found guilty of the charges.

Consequent thereupon, vide order dated 15.05.2018, punishment of recovery of Rs. 3,93,000/- and stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 17927 of 2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court vide interim order dated 03.08.2018 stayed the operation of recovery issued vide order dated 15.05.2018. Thе writ petition was not decided on merits and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide Court order dated 29.06.2021. Hence, the petitioner cannot be considered to be exonerated of the charges leveled against her. Therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria to be recommended / nominated to the post of HCS (Executive Branch). Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was not recommended to the office of respondent No. 1 for nomination to the post of HCS (EB) against Register 'C', while sending/recommending the names of 23 other eligible officers vide letter dated 12.07.2019."

+ !

! 4%

! >= 2 3 "4. That during the course of investigation, Ms. Ritu Lathar and Sh. Hari Bhagwan Sharma, both BDPOs, were found innocent and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan form. Moreover, the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order dated 30.08.2024, acquitted the following accused namely Sh. Shyam, Proprietor, Jai Dadi Sati Enterprises, Bhiwani, Sh. Rajbir Singh, Proprietor, Balaji Enterprises, Bhiwani, Smt. Babita

Devi, Panch, Smt. Prakashi Devi, Panch, Kaluwas. However, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, former Sarpanch, Kaluwas, Sh. Rajesh Singla, Proprietor, Iron Store, Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Proprietor, Shyam Marble, Sh. Hanuman Kaushik, Proprietor, Jagannath Earth Mover, Sh. Jitendra Singh, former Village Secretary, Kaluwas and Sh. Jitendra, Proprietor of Dadi Sati Jaabde Enterprises were convicted."

= !4+-

4 2 !) 4

8 2

4%E- F !

- -G 8 2

- - !

F 4

- >=G8-

! %

: % -

4 - ! 8 !

- -4 + !

- 8

% -- ! 8

A>=<

F> G$ - %

4 %>=!

% - 4

4 !

- - -

47 % - % 4

- ' %' %4

8- ' 2 % '

- - '

- 4% - 8E- ! ' -

- '

- %' ' - %

' 4

' !

4% - 8 4 ' !

F -

-G

-G='

!E- +'

4 4%

4 - F - - G

% !

3 ' -

! ' %

! 4

! '!

4 7 >

- 6 $ %

0/;/1 * ! % ! %

%4 !

4 -

//;8

'- %

4 !

: %

4 4% "%

! % /,=

4: % !

!"%

! ' 4

' !

(

-:!

- '

8 !

4% "%

/0/, !! '

- -

- 8 : % ! "%

/0/, 4% "

- 6 $ %

* ! % !

0/;/1 ' -

- '

- - 8 7

! !

- 3*

4 44

5 ! !

+ ! - '

- !

- - - !

' 4%$

<4 * !

4 -

! %

% -4 ! - %=

;.* *-

4 ! %

8 2

- !

- -

!>= ,,/,/( - -

! !

7 8 ! %4%

! - -!

! -

, 8 2 3 Fiii. That the similar situated person/candidates i.e. Rakesh Kumar Sandhu Deputy Director, O/o Director General Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and Gangandeep Singh DDPO against whom the following FIR were registered:

Rakesh Kumar Sandhu FIR No.241, dated 04.06.2019, Deputy Director under Section 166, 167, 192, 34, 403, 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of IPC, P.S.

Tosham, District Bhiwani.

Gagandeep Singh FIR No.195, dated 06.11.2018, DDPO under Section 306 of IPC, PS. Pillu Khera, District Jind.

The nominations of both the above stated candidates Rakesh Kumar Sandhu Deputy Director, O/o Director General Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and Gangandeep Singh DDPO have been recommended for consideration to Register-C maintained under Rule 14 of HCS (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 for the year 2019 despite the

;

fact that the above stated FIR(s) are pending against them and the nomination of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that investigation of FIR against her is pending. However, the investigation is already completed and petitioner is found innocent by the Vigilance Bureau and challan against rest of the accused persons is already prepared on 04.12.2017 as evident from letter dated 18.07.2019 and letter dated 19.07.2019."

!213

(iii) That in reply to contents of para 16 (iii) of the petition, it is submitted that in both these cases i.e. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sandhu and Sh. Gagandeep Singh no preliminary inquiries were conducted by the Vigilance Department and straight away FIRS have been registered by the police on complaints and the investigation are underway, therefore, until and unless the investigating agency prima facie comes to the conclusion that there is substantial material against these DDPOs, it cannot be inferred that they are facing criminal proceedings or are being contemplated. Whereas, so far as the case of present petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the Vigilance Department conducted a preliminary inquiry and recommended for registration of an FIR against the petitioner. Accordingly, an FIR No. 26 dated 26.06.

2015 u/s 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and sec 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This in itself prima facie infers that criminal proceedings are being contemplated against the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner in order to halt the further action in the said FIR i.e. submission of challan etc. against her, moved an application to the State Vigilance Bureau for re-investigation.

incriminating evidence came on record which prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence, though it has been reported by the DSP, Vigilance in his report that all other officials of the office of BDPO were involved in the commission of aforesaid offences. It is relevant to mention here that the said cancellation report is yet to be accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, all the funds released/expenditure incurred out of Government funds in the 0/0 BDPO is always authorized by the BDPO, being the drawing and disbursing authority of its office. Therefore, the re-investigation report submitted by the DSP, Vigilance cannot be said to be a correct one, however, the said report is subject to acceptance by the competent Court of law.

Hence, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of two other DDPOs as mentioned in this sub para of the petition. Besides, the aforestated criminal proceedings, the petitioner has been charge sheeted u/r 7 for major penalty on account of causing loss to the State exchequer and after departmental inquiry she has been found guilty of the charges. Consequent thereupon, vide order dated 15.05.2018 an order of recovery of Rs. 3,93,000/- and for the stoppage of an annual increment with cumulative effect was issued. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No 17297 of 2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court vide interim order dated 03.08.2018 stayed the recovery issued vide order dated 15.05.2018. The writ petition is still pending adjudication before Hon'ble High Court.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner challenged the said punishment order before the Governor of Haryana by filing a memorial and during the pendency of said memorial, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,93,000/- thereupon, the Governor of Haryana vide orders dated 30.04.

memorial by restoring her one annual increment with immediate effect, which was stopped vide order dated 15.05.2018 by the State Govt. Hence, the petitioner cannot be considered to be exonerated of the charges leveled against her at the time of cut of date, i.e., 12.07.2019."

!! - - '

< 44% '

7 !

: %'

4% - -

! >='

'% !

8 * ! !

% ' !

- ' >=4 - 4 - -

% 4 !

- '

!>= - - 3!

8 * ! 4' 4 - 4% !!

F %E G ' -

+ -2

% ' %

4 3

! 7

! '

8% 2 % % ' C

8% % '

% ? 4 % !

- %4% - ! 2

- - %

4 4 % !4

% !

! 3

- % !

4 % '

4 7 '8

4 - % -

4! - % %

-- '

C !

! 4F%& '"

#$%'4 0%&$%21%'53 25"$!!0%'4& "5 4%'& 67"8 $ %"'

%& 9!%'4 $"' !821 !0G 8!

- ! : 2

% '8

24 -

! % !

% ' ! - %

% - ' %

< F + !%4

4 % !

! -G %

$ !

!! -

4 % 24 4

% '

)

= !

A'"

#$%'4 0%&$%21%'53 25"$!!0%'4&< ! :

! ' %

' 4

/;/1

(/(/0 4 - !

- -

4 2 8 2

F#$%'4 0%&$%21%'53 25"$!!0%'4&G 4

2 ! A

- %

-< -

- ' ! 47 4!

* 82

F#$%'4G

4 ' !

- 8 %

- 4

' 4

D % %

- %

! (/(/0 8 ' ! 47 ! -4!

' 4 7

4 4

! %

- - % = '

4 %

* 2

)

! %

" '

+ 4%

% %'

$ -* -

" ! : % !

' $ % 4

! ! %

4 ' !

) %%4 4 - 4!

- - 3* !//0 '

- %4

8 4

4 ! !

% ! %

4 -2

C4 '

4 ' 7

% 5

! '

! ! %

: 8 - 4 %

- 4 %) : !

! ' !

$ '

- !

- '

8 E- '

! !

-8 -!

-< A %<

4 '

!E- 4 '

4 -' ' 2

-- E- ' !!

4 ! -

42 = 4

4 - - -

4 - E-

: ! %

- ! ' !

!E-

- % ' %

4 !

H - ! % !

(/(/0 - !

% 4 %4%$ -* *? ;1;3 /0

/./0/0D - '

' -

-4 % %

' - 4

' ! 4 - -

(/(/0non est!

! % ! ! $ % *

52 //0=

- !!

- %

' -

!%4%$ - *

!%!!

%! - !-- =' % '

4%$

<4 * !*75!!

78:'0% "2!0& ) 0 -&

7:5$7

"# *": 7 '0%

;

4 !

!% % '

- H %

% - !!

- -%4%*

% -

' !! '

4+ ! -

(/(/1 4!

- !4

- 3* !$* 52 6 *

! !

! ! %

' '

4 -

7 !%

./0/1 8 '

4 4

! : %' ' '

' - A*< 4! !

- 4

8 *

' '

4 % % ! % - !! %/,% % 4 7 $ : 4+

' ' !

: % '

' 8

- 4 %

4 47 $ % 4

8 *

!% !

% 47 !

! % !

4'!' !7

' %

4 4 ! ! %

%'! %!

! ! % !

' 8+

! '

! %

3 .

- *

5< 5"5

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No