- (1.) This petition relates to a question, of course, of high importance which already stands answered in various judicial pronouncements made from time to time. It can be summarised in the following manner : "On what facts and under what circumstances, a disciplinary authority can dispense with the provisions of Clauses (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1972 and proceed to take action against the delinquent official who stands honourably acquitted by a Court." Though the earlier decision, some of them cited before me as well, concern to somewhat different set of facts, yet the ratio of those verdicts shall be applied to instant case and relevant portion culled out at a subsequent stage.
(2.) The petitioner was a regular employee of Haryana Government. He was working as driver in the Health Department since 10.5.1980. Undisputedly, he tried to molest two ladies Smt. Mewa and Smt. Santosh. A criminal case vide FIR No. 130 dated 18.12.1986 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him and one other person. Both of them were tried on the said charge by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and acquitted vide his order dated 10.4.1987 (copy Annexure P-1). It is clear from the acquittal order that both the ladies solemnly affirmed before the Court that they were not assaulted by the petitioner nor any attempt was made by him to commit rape. The learned trial Judge observed : "It is a case of no evidence against the accused and they are acquitted of the charge framed." After acquittal the petitioner who was under suspension on account of registration of criminal case, approached the authorities for his reinstatement, but the disciplinary authority took a deterrent decision and dismissed him from service vide order dated 4.5.1987 (Annexure P-2) without holding regular departmental enquiry or giving any opportunity of being heard. The reasons therefore given in the dismissed order are as under : "The act of Shri Ram Sarup Driver (under suspension) is unbecoming of a Government servant and hence required strict disciplinary action against him so that others may get lesson and do not repeat such an act in future. Smt. Mewa and Smt. Santosh gave statements in this regard. These statements are self-explanatory. No lady can write or state which directly hits her own modesty without any base. It is very sensitive matter relating to the honour of the ladies and as such they will hesitate to give statement at the time of regular enquiry. On the basis of aforesaid reasons, it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry and afford reasonable opportunity in terms of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1972."
(3.) The petitioner's laments is that on his honourable acquittal by the criminal Court in the case for which he was placed under suspension, he should have been reinstated or if the authorities were to proceed to take departmental action, a regular enquiry should have been made in which he would have been able to explain his position. According to him the order of dismissal is bad in law and has been passed for extraneous consideration. The respondents have come with a plea that under the provision of sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the Director Health Services, Haryana has rightly exercised his power whilst dispensing with holding of a regular enquiry against the petitioner.;