104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. ASHWANI YADAV AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR Present Mr. for the * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The Haryana in Appeal against the judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP 2. The present Appeal suffers from delay of 195 days in filing and 26 days in re raised by the learned counsel for the appellant although there was no concealment at the part of the respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner in CWP allegations in the FIR registered against him, under Sections 287/340 the appellant decided to not offer him appointment. 3. We notice that respondent No.1 has criminal case. moral turpitude. We were for the period IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1571 Date of Decision: HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. V YADAV AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. is before the Court in Appeal against the judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP-1567-2021. The present Appeal suffers from delay of 195 days in filing and 26 days in re-filing. That apart, we have a raised by the learned counsel for the appellant although there was no concealment at the part of the respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner in CWP-1567-2021), but allegations in the FIR registered against him, under Sections 287/340 the appellant decided to not offer him appointment. We notice that respondent No.1 has criminal case. It was not the allegations of committing of any offence moral turpitude. We also notice that the allegations leveled against him were for the period when he was a contractual employee and essentially the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1571-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23rd of May, 2025 HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. is before the Court in Appeal against the judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned The present Appeal suffers from delay of 195 days in filing and filing. That apart, we have also examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on merits, who submits that although there was no concealment at the part of the respondent No.1 but considering the nature of allegations in the FIR registered against him, under Sections 287/340-A IPC the appellant decided to not offer him appointment. We notice that respondent No.1 has been acquitted in the not the allegations of committing of any offence of also notice that the allegations leveled against him he was a contractual employee and essentially the Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1571-2025 (O&M) allegations were departmental proceedings 4. Be that as it may, learned Single Bench as examined the aspect from all angles and also considered the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar 429. In view thereto, we find no reason to take a diff has been taken by the learned Single Bench in impugned order dated 05.08.2024. No case for interference is made out. The LPA is dismissed accordingly on delay and on merits as well. 5. Al accordingly. May 23, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2025 (O&M) p. 2 were of dereliction of duty for which there is no departmental proceedings. Be that as it may, learned Single Bench as examined the aspect from all angles and also considered the Division Bench judgment of this Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others In view thereto, we find no reason to take a diff has been taken by the learned Single Bench in impugned order dated . No case for interference is made out. The LPA is dismissed accordingly on delay and on merits as well. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : of dereliction of duty for which there is no finding for any Be that as it may, learned Single Bench as examined the aspect from all angles and also considered the Division Bench judgment of this State of Haryana and Others; 2006(4) SCT In view thereto, we find no reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Single Bench in impugned order dated . No case for interference is made out. The LPA is dismissed pending applications in this case are dismissed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 09:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document