AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned communication dated 10.9.2012 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned communication. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply on behalf of respondents was filed. Petitioner also filed his replication.
The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that character certificate should have been issued in the format appended at Annexure P-11, which was issued to the petitioner earlier.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the only material fact which has been mentioned in the impugned communication is registration of FIR against the petitioner, which was a matter of record that there was nothing wrong in doing so.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the present case at the hands of this Court.
A combined reading of the impugned communication Annexure P-9 as well as Annexure P-11 would make it clear that except recording of factum of registration of FIR against the petitioner, there is no other difference.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to what kind of prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, while issuing the impugned communication. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR No. 15 dated 1.11.2006 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Jalandhar, Punjab has been registered against the petitioner.
It is also a matter of record that except recording of the FIR against the petitioner, no adverse comment has been made against the petitioner. In fact, the respondent authorities are duty bound to reveal all the information about the petitioner, which they did. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities have committed no error of law, while recording the FIR in the impugned communication dated 10.9.2012, which is in the form of character verification.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the present petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. No case for interference is made out. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.