High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12841/2013disposed of

Sudesh Kumar v. Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak And ORS

2022-09-22Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-12841-2013 DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2022 SUDESH KUMAR ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK AND ORS ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:

Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for R-1 & 2.

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

**** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working as Clerk-cum-Typist has been dismissed from service in the year 2010 on the ground that he helped in preparing forged detailed marksheet of a student namely Neena Sood in the year 1991. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 20 years. The afore-noted student had filed a writ petition bearing CWP-18369-2010 seeking quashing of the order whereby it was held that she has a bogus detailed marks certificate and degree. The petition had been allowed by this Court on 06.12.2016 after examining the record. The Court had upheld the authenticity of Detailed Marks Certificate (DMC). Respondent No.1 had accepted the DMC and the result of the student had been updated in terms thereof. The petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to reinstatement.

SWARN JIT SINGH 2022.09.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12841-2013 Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has received instructions that respondent No.2 is willing to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment dated 06.12.2016 of the coordinate Bench passed in CWP No.13869 of 2010.

Heard.

Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforenoted judgment after affording him an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The petitioner would also be given liberty to file a representation which would be taken into account before passing a fresh order. The needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the representation.

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) 22.09.2022 JUDGE SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No SWARN JIT SINGH 2022.09.22 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document