Sudesh Kumar vs Maharishi Dayanand University ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12009 P&H

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203                                  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 mark-

sheet 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.

1 of 2

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 afore-

noted 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




                                           2 of 2