Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar Arora And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139138-DB
LPA-1894-2024(O&M)
2024(O&M)
1
136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1894-2024(O&M)
2024(O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.10.2024
.10.2024
Rajinder Kumar Arora and another . . . . Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment/Order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, with further direction to respondent/Directorate respondent/Director of Higher er Education to take final decision on the complaint made against the eighth respondent within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.
2. The case of appellant No.1 is that he was Incharge ncharge of the College and was handling all the affairs of the College and there were certain complaints made against other respondents by some girl student students' relating to harassment and other matters. The preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was sent to the concerned officer relating to the action to be taken 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2024 01:36:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139138-DB LPA-1894-2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2 against the concerned respondents.
respondent . However, respondents under the influence of the concerned local MLA lodged a false complaint against the appellants,, which has resulted in issuing of charge sheets.
sheet .
3. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take notice upon the facts of the case and the order of dismissal of writ petition is, therefore, therefore bad in law.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitionerss.
5 It is a case where charge-sheets
charge under the Rules
Rules, issued to the
appellants after a preliminary inquiry has been conducted, wherein prima facie allegations against the appellants were found to be made out out, merely erely because appellants have not given any opportunity in th the preliminary inquiry, it cannot be said that issuance of charge sheets sheets based on a preliminary inquiry would be bad in law.
l The appellants shall get fair opportunity to contest the allegations against them by filing reply to the charge sheet sheets and if the charges are found to be not made out or based on false allegations, they would have opportunity to put up their defence accordingly.
accordingly.
6. In view of above, we are satisfied that the Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition at this stage. Further Further, this Court ourt finds that the Single Judge has also taken note of the report filed by the appellants as against the respondents and has directed the Director Directorate of Higher Education to take final decision on the complaint against the respondent respondent, which also does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, LPA is found to be misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
dismi 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2024 01:36:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139138-DB LPA-1894-2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 3
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 23,, 2024 rashmi
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2024 01:36:09 :::