He contended a misleading averment was made before the High Court to the fact that the petitioner had suffered punishment pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.
The fact of the matter is that he was eventually exonerated in those enquiries. However, petitioner did not get any opportunity to bring such material on record before the High Court. The other circumstances relied upon by the High Court can also be well explained by the petitioner, his counsel contended.
"So far as the challenge to the appointment is concerned, we do not find any merit in such a challenge. The view taken by the division bench of the High Court does not warrant any interference. As regard to the adverse comments made by the High Court on the conduct and credentials of the petitioner, it seems to us that the petitioner has some explanation worth consideration," the bench said.
The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the HC with regard to adverse remarks."We request the High Court to take a sympathetic view and pass appropriate order as it may deem fit," the bench said.
Published 10 April 2024, 18:31 IST