AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmaljit Kaur, J
The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 20.07.2011 and 22.12.2017, on the ground that the no opportunity was granted to the
petitioner to defend himself.
The petitioner had earlier also filed writ petition bearing CWP No. 16351 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of, vide order dated
13.02.2017, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority with a further direction that the said Appellate Authority
would dispose of the same within one month by way of passing a speaking order.
The petitioner is stated to have filed his appeal on 10.03.2017. The only ground raised herein is that although he had replied to the charge-sheet but
no chance was given to him to seek advise from an Advocate.
However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 shows that while dealing with the said argument, it was held that the departmental
proceedings were totally different to that of a criminal case. In any case, there is nothing to show that the petitioner ever requested for the help of an
Advocate. Moreover, it is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner had admitted that all the fraudulent appointment letters were dealt by
him and he also admitted his signatures on those fraudulent appointment letters. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show otherwise.
No other argument was raised.
Dismissed accordingly.