Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 22.06.2011, the applicant was issued a charge Memorandum stating that he has remained in police custody from 18.10.2009 to 19.10.2009 in connection with DDR No.39 dated 18.10.2009 under Sections 107/151 of Cr.PC registered at PS City Rewari on a complaint made by one Smt. Bhagwani Devi wife of Shri Lal Singh (Aunt of the applicant). He was thereafter produced before SDM, Rewari on 19.10.2009 and was enlarged on bail thereafter.

7. In the meantime, the applicant also applied for the post of DCIO/Exe in IB on 11.05.2011 but the same was not considered for the aforesaid disciplinary case being pending against him. It is the submission of the applicant that the case has been instituted against him under the provisions of law. This case has since been closed as disclosed in the communication to this effect to respondent No.2. The applicant was then extended the benefits as mentioned in para 4.13 of the OA.

8. The applicant submits that the respondents after having filed their counter affidavit on 21.02.2013 (Annexure A15) in WP(C) No.7681/2012, issued the charge memo dated 18.6.2013 (Annexure A11) that the applicant has failed to intimate the department regarding his alleged arrest on 18.10.2009 and the fact that he was subsequently enlarged on bail on 19.10.2009, thereby charging the applicant that he had tried to mislead the department regarding his arrest.

9. The applicant further submits that S.P., Rewari, had sent report stating that preventive action has been taken against the applicant, who had been arrested vide PCR No.39 dated 18.10.2009 under Sections 107/151 of Cr. PC dated 19.10.2009; he was produced before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil) Rewari on that day and bailed out. A photocopy of the Kalendra entry was also attached along with the report. The applicant has also cited several instances of harassment and malafide action made against the applicant by respondent No.3 in para 4.17 of the OA including that disbursement of salary for the duty performed by the applicant on Saturdays and Sundays and other holidays was only being made after he was required to make a representation, while it had been disbursed to others in routine course; non-assigning of duty to the applicant on Saturdays and Sundays on account his filing a court case; making of false allegations against the applicant for not insuring the Government vehicle without there being any fault on his part; rejection of his case for selection as DCIO, despite the fact that he had appeared in the interview; and willfully withholding the extension of deputation of the applicant for the 5th year.