LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is to memo dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby services of the petitioner who was serving on the post of Accounts Assistant have been dispensed with. Petitioner also seeks the setting aside of order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts are that Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued advertisement No.03 of 2007 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Accounts Assistant in Haryana Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' in short). Petitioner applied for the post in question and was subjected to a process of selection. His name was recommended for appointment by the Commission on 07.12.2007. HUDA issued a letter of appointment dated 20.12.2007 for the post of Accounts Assistant. Petitioner submitted his joining in the office of Chief Town Planner, HUDA, Panchkula on 01.01.2008. Prior thereto petitioner had also furnished an affidavit dated 31.12.2007 deposing that a false criminal case i.e. FIR No.198 dated 28.05.2007, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Penal Code and Sections 7, 13 and 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act had been registered at Police Station Nuh and in which he is facing trial. Apparently, the HUDA authorities on the basis of the petitioner being involved in the aforenoticed FIR and for offences involving moral turpitude passed the order dated 12.08.2008 at Annexure P-3 dispensing with the services of the petitioner and also stating therein that the appointment letter dated 20.12.2007 stands "withdrawn". The appeal preferred by the petitioner stands declined vide impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that in pursuance to a regular selection process, the petitioner was duly selected on the post of Accounts Assistant and on which he had joined on 01.01.2008. Merely on the basis that the petitioner stood trial in a criminal case, services of the petitioner cannot be terminated. It is also submitted that at the stage of submitting application for the post, there was no FIR/case pending against the petitioner and as such there was no question of any concealment of facts. Counsel submits that in the trial that had ensued after registration of FIR No.198 dated 28.05.2007, petitioner stands acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide judgment dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P-5) and against which respondents had preferred not even to file an appeal. It is argued that under such circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities in having rejected his appeal and thereby having denied his claim for reinstatement back in service is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.