Yashvir Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner who was in service of the respondents, was suspended. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted vide memo. No. 21/MC dated 16.2.2012 (Annexure P-1). Reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he made a representation to the respondents to supply him certain documents which were necessary for defending his case, but the said documents were not supplied to him. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to respondent No. 3 to supply necessary documents to him, to enable him to place the same on record before respondent No. 4, as the said documents are relevant in the said inquiry proceedings pending against him.

Admittedly, while issuing chargesheet dated 16.2.2012 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was informed that if he wishes to have access to the relevant official record for preparing his written statement to the charges, he should inspect the same in the office of the respondent-authorities. It may also be noticed that in the instant writ petition, it is not the case of the petitioner that despite his request, he was not allowed such an opportunity, as stated in the charge-sheet. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure P-5 would show that the respondent-authorities have even informed the Inquiry Officer that the documents which are not relevant to the charges cannot be supplied to the petitioner and the demand of the petitioner was declined. There is no challenge to the said memo dated 13.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) in the instant writ petition. Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner has already availed his remedy, seeking the documents vide Annexure P-6.

At this stage, it may further be noticed that the earlier Inquiry Officer Shri R.K. Gupta, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) who was the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and Shri Sat Pal Jain, the Finance Secretary of S.A. Jain Senior Secondary School, Ambala City, who was the member of the Inquiry Committee, had withdrawn from the inquiry proceedings because of the conduct of the petitioner. Further reference may also be made to letter Annexure P-4, which has been sent by the petitioner to the existing Inquiry Officer, wherein he has taken the following categoric stand:-

Until and unless I get the documents demanded by me as ''List of References'' and get the written order of the commission why my defence Asst. Mr. Neeraj Bali has been banned by the management of the school to participate it won''t be good for me to co-operate such an non co-operative Office bearers of S.A. Jain Sen. Sec. School''s Management Committee. As soon as I get the documents demanded by me as ''List of References'' I''ll be available to face the Enquiry Commission.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the instant case. Dismissed.