STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS versus DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 14-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1046 : 2023 INSC 1070
1046
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
v.
DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2023)
DECEMBER 14, 2023
[M.M. SUNDRESH AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: On a reading of r.9, Haryana Civil Service 
(Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, letters dated 30.05.2019 and 09.07.2019, 
whether 01.11.2018 can be said to be the cut-oﬀ  period uniformly applicable 
qua all the eligibility conditions provided in r.9(1)(a) and (b) or is such date 
to be considered as the cut-oﬀ  date only for the purpose of determining 
age-related eligibility and; if 01.11.2018 is to be held as the cut oﬀ  only for 
the limited purpose, whether the respondent satisﬁ ed the other eligibility 
conditions and whether it can be said that there was any disciplinary action 
pending or contemplated against him as on date of consideration.
Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 – rr.7-
9 – Relevant cut-oﬀ  date qua the eligibility condition of pending 
disciplinary proceedings – Determination – Disciplinary proceedings 
if were ‘contemplated’ against Respondent as on date of consideration:
Held: r.9 does not contemplate a uniform cut-oﬀ  date qua all the 
conditions of eligibility – 01.11.2018 was relevant only in so far as r.9(1)(a)
(ii) was considered – For the purpose of r.9(1)(a)(iii), the relevant date for 
determining if there was any disciplinary action contemplated or pending 
against a candidate “is the date of consideration”, which is the date on which 
the Committee had recommended names to the Commission u/r.9(2), which, 
in the facts of this case would be 31.08.2019 – The reason for declaring 
the Respondent ineligible for selection as per r.9 was on the ground that 
decision had been taken on ﬁ le to charge sheet him u/r.7 – At no point was it 
asserted by him that disciplinary proceedings were not contemplated against 
him – His entire case from the very beginning has been that the cut-oﬀ  date 
1047
qua all eligibility conditions must be determined as on 01.11.2018 and since 
there was no decision/contemplation to initiate any disciplinary proceedings 
as of that date, he ought to have been recommended for appointment – The 
main allegation against Respondent was that on 05.01.2019 and 06.01.2019, 
he was directed to act as Duty Magistrate during the Haryana Teacher’s 
Eligibility Test, 2018 and he remained absent from this duty and thus, was 
negligent in performing his oﬃ  cial duties – The Deputy Commissioner, 
Kurukshetra wrote letter dtd.9.01.2019 to the Additional Chief Secretary 
and Finance Commissioner, Government of Haryana, Department of 
Revenue and Disaster Management in this regard and recommended that 
formal inquiry be initiated against the Respondent – In view of the same, a 
decision was taken on 05.02.2019 to charge-sheet him – It is not relevant to 
consider what happened beyond the date of consideration, that is, 31.08.2019 
– However, subsequent to this date, there was a chargesheet issued against 
the Respondent and ultimately, the entire proceedings came to be dropped 
on 11.12.2019 – Since the eligibility conditions in r.9(1)(a)(iii), the validity 
of which is not under challenge, requires this Court to limit the inquiry 
into the question of eligibility as on date of consideration, what happens 
after that becomes insigniﬁ cant to the inquiry – On facts, as on the date of 
consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the Respondent, 
and therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name 
in Register A-1 – Order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside 
and order of the Single Judge is aﬃ  rmed – Service Law. [Paras 47-51]
Words and Phrases – ‘contemplation’ – Discussed – Service Law.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 738; H. Surendra Shetty 
v. Vijaya Bank, MG Road Bangalore & Ors., ILR 2000 Kar 2883; Union of 
India Vs. KV Janakiraman, [1991] 3 SCR 790: (1991) 4 SCC 109; Govt. of 
India Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs & Ors. v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, [1971] 3 SCR 
715 : 1971 AIR SC 823; P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, [1972] 2 SCR 695 : 
(1972) 1 SCC 332; Kul Bhusan Chopra v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 
(1979) IILLJ 86; State Of U.P v. Jai Singh Dixit and Others (1976) ILLJ 
246; Santi Kumar Ganguly v. The State of Tripura and Ors. (1982 GLR 1 
21); Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union of India, [1964] 6 SCR 190 : 
1964 AIR SC 1854; S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.