Court on its own motion vs Sh. Sukhbir Singh, I.A.S.

Jawaharalal Gupta, J.—These proceedings are a sequel to the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 12002 of 1991. One Radha Krishan Juneja was given three months'' notice of premature retirement. He challenged it. The respondent, Mr. Sukhbir Singh, IAS, who was then working as Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, filed a written statement in which he averred that the petitioner''s record of service was such as did not warrant his retention in service beyond the age of 50 years. It was stated that "the petitioner has earned 10 reports during the period from 1980-81 to 1989-90 out of which 2 are below average, 4 average, 1 awaited and 2-2/3 good.... The summary giving overall assessment of service record is annexed R-II." While deciding the writ petition, it was found that the averment made by Mr. Sukhbir Singh was falsified by the summary of record produced as Annexure R-II with the written statement. According to this document, the petitioner had earned 3-2/3 good reports, 5 average and reports for 1-1/3 years had not been recorded. It was held that there was not a single report wherein the petitioner''s performance may have been assessed as ''below average.'' Consequently, it was directed that a notice be, given to the respondent to show cause as to why prosecution for filing an inaccurate statement and proceedings for contempt of this Court under Article 215 of the constitution, be not initiated against him. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on September 15, 1992. thereafter, the petitions for Special Leave Nos. 15177-78 of 1992, having been dismissed vide order dated February 15, 1993, the respondent has appeared and filed his reply. He has inter alia averred that he had joined his duties as Joint Secretary on July 1, 1991 and had signed the written statement on August 30, 1991. He has pointed out that in view of the various orders of punishment passed against Mr. Juneja, proposals for downgrading his ACRs and his compulsory retirement were intitated by the Engineer-in-Chief vide letters dated January 13, 1990 and September 3, 1990 respectively. The matter was considered by the Government and the ACR for the year 1980-81 was downgraded from ''Good'' to ''Average''.

The respondent has also stated that if there had been any malafide intention on his part, he would not have appended Annexure R-II with the written statement and that the inaccuracy had crept in "From office record during the preparation and vetting of the written statement which passed through several hands...." It has been further stated that "had the learned counsel representing the State in CWP 12009 of 1991 brought this inaccuracy to the notice of the respondent beforehand the position would have been squarely explained but unfortunately the judgment dated 18-5-1992 was passed in the absence of the respondent. The respondent was also new to the post of Joint Secretary, PWD (B & R), when he signed the written statement on 30-8-1991." An effort has also been made to show that the written statement was signed on account of rush and heavy quantum of work, the respondent states that he has put in over 28 years of service in the Haryana Government with impecable service record and the proceedings, if allowed to continue against him, will jeopardise his brilliant service career and impede the promotional avenues. He goes on to state that if the Court is of the view that "any act of omission or commission is attributable on the part of the respondent which tantamounts to Contempt of this Hon''ble Court, even remotely, he tenders his unconditional, unqualified and regretful apology for the same, which may kindly be accepted." He "also undertakes to be more careful in future while dealing with the Court matters."

I have heard Mr. Hira Lal Sibal, Advocate General, Haryana, who has appeared to defend the officer.

On a perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent had filed an inaccurate written statement. The averment that Radha Krishan Juneja had earned two reports wherein he was graded as ''below average,'' was totally false. Similarly, even the averments with regard to the average or good reports were inaccurate. Further, the plea now sought to be taken by the respondent that he was new to the post of Joint Secretary, PWD (B & R), is too tenuous. On his own showing, he had "put in over 28 years of service in the Haryana Government with impecable service record." Equally, untenable is the plea that the inaccuracy occurred on account of rush or heavy quantum of work. Not only that there is no material to substantiate this plea, but even otherwise, it is no defence to the charge of filing a false written statement.

It is incumbent on every person making statement on oath or affirmation to speak the truth. He must ensure that every averment is true and accurate. No deviation is permissible. Every litigant who approaches the Curt has to ensure that the facts stated by him are correct. This responsibility is even greater in the case of officers of the Government as they have not only the assistance of the staff but have even the entire record with them. When a little copper is mixed with gold, it debases it. Similarly, when a false statement is made before the Court, the fountain of justice is polluted.

Mr. Sukhbir Singh had made a wrong statement before this Court. He had failed to exercise due diligence and care while verifying the contents of the written statement. He deserves to be punished. However, in view of the "unqualified and regretful apology" tendered by him, I only reprimand him and warn him to be careful in future. Reluctantly, 1 drop the matter here.