MOHAN SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MOHAN SINGH BISHT
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Tarun Agarwala, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 03.03.1989, by which his services was terminated as well as for the quashing of the order dated 14.03.2001 whereby the petitioner's application for reinstatement in service was rejected by the Regional Administrative Committee. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary in the Ranibagh Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Ranibagh, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital in the year 1980. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the charges of embezzlement, absence from duty and keeping incomplete records of the Samiti, etc. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed and an enquiry officer was also appointed. The petitioner denied the charges. The departmental enquiry was accordingly conducted and, full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding that all the charges stood proved against the petitioner including the charge relating to embezzlement. The enquiry report was considered by the Administrative Committee and a resolution was passed accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. The Committee found that the charges were severe in nature and, accordingly, resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner. The said resolution was intimated to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 03.03.1989.
(3.) IT transpires that on the charge of embezzlement of certain amounts, a first information report was also filed against the petitioner, which resulted in a criminal trial. The trial court, by an order dated 03.06.1989, held that the charges could not be proved against the petitioner and, accordingly acquitted the petitioner. On the basis of the acquittal, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents for his reinstatement which was rejected by the Committee by an order dated 14.03.2001. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.