HC slams senior officers for 'false' affidavits

Taking a stern view of apparent false statements made before it, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has warned the Haryana Forest Department that the matter may attract contempt proceedings, after finding that affidavits filed earlier by senior officers contained “absolutely false and misleading” assertions.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said the conduct of the department, particularly when senior officers of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary were involved, had been viewed with “utmost seriousness.”

“If senior officers of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary make incorrect statements before the court, it undermines the faith and trust of the public not only in the administration but also the judicial process itself,” the Bench said.

The matter pertains to a bunch of petitions filed by Manoj Kumar and other petitioners against the state and another respondent. Among other things, the petitioners were seeking regularisation of services.

The state, in compliance with the previous order dated October 17, placed on record a speaking order dated November 4, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularisation. The state subsequently informed the court that the service record, earlier stated to have been weeded out, had been traced. It was added that the physical files had been removed, but digital records were preserved and had now been examined. Based on this, the government said it would file a written statement contesting the petitioners’ claims.

However, Justice Moudgil noted that the explanation exposed the falsity of earlier affidavits. “This court prima facie finds that the affidavits filed earlier, on not one but two occasions, contained incorrect statements to the effect that the department was unable to ascertain whether the petitioner(s) had worked during the period from 1988 to 2008, on the ground that the relevant record had been allegedly weeded out. This assertion is now found to be absolutely false and misleading to the court,” he remarked.

Terming the issue as one that struck at the core of institutional integrity, the court said it would further examine whether there had been a deliberate and intentional attempt to commit contempt of court by withholding the record with intent to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights. The matter has been adjourned to November 21.