Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought replies from its registrar and the Punjab govt on a petition by a former additional district and sessions judge of Ropar, Balwinder Kumar Sharma, challenging a departmental inquiry that indicted him in the 2017 Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) preliminary exam paper leak case and his subsequent dismissal from service.A division bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor gave the respondents time till the next hearing on Dec 2 to file their replies.Sharma, then registrar (recruitment) of the high court, was sentenced by a Delhi court on Aug 22, 2024, to five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with two others in the paper leak case.Senior advocate RS Bains, assisted by advocate Kanwal S Walia, challenged the inquiry report dated Dec 8, 2023, and subsequent proceedings, including the recommendation for his dismissal and the Sept 9, 2024, dismissal notification.Sharma has sought quashing of the proceedings and reinstatement with consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, allowances, seniority and financial upgrades, with interest. He has also sought that his suspension period be treated as duty.According to the petition, Sharma was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and was serving as registrar (recruitment) in 2014. He was involved in the 2017 Haryana civil judge/judicial magistrate recruitment process, including confidential work related to the preliminary exam.The exam was held on July 16, 2017. Following a complaint alleging a paper leak, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted. An FIR was later registered against Sharma and two others, while departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He was served a chargesheet in Sept 2018.Sharma has challenged the inquiry on grounds including violation of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He alleged that vital defence evidence, including a pen-drive containing mobile data, was not considered, despite the inquiry relying on electronic and oral evidence.He also alleged that objections to the admissibility and relevance of evidence were not decided before the material was relied upon, and that admissions allegedly made by employer witnesses during cross-examination were ignored.Sharma questioned the reliance on call-detail records and other electronic evidence, alleging the records were inaccurate and contradictory and did not establish the alleged “close contact” between him and Sunita, one of the accused in the criminal case. He also challenged her identification in the inquiry proceedings.The petition further contended that the inquiry report did not separately assess each charge and instead concluded that “all the charges are proved”. Sharma cited Rule 8(23) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.He also argued that the inquiry failed to apply the standard of preponderance of probabilities and wrongly placed the burden on him. He alleged that inadmissible and irrelevant material, including documents from the criminal proceedings and preliminary inquiry, was relied upon.The Delhi court had sentenced Sharma’s associate Sunita to five years’ rigorous imprisonment in the paper leak case. Sunita had topped the exam in the general category. Another candidate, Sushila, who topped the reserved category, was also held guilty of receiving the leaked paper and was sentenced to imprisonment, having already spent nine months in custody during the trial. Six other accused were acquitted.
