Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a delinquent official was serving as a Clerk in Tacavi Branch, Tehsil Office, Fazilka during the period from July 1975 to June, 1979. The Audit Inspecting Officer visited the Tehsil Office, Fazilka and submitted a report on 03.08.1979 pertaining to alleged embezzlement of amount of Rs. 7200/ - by the petitioner. Thereafter, the then SDO(C) posted at Fazilka made a report against the petitioner vide memo dated 04.08.1979. The petitioner was served with charge sheet. After seeking his reply and consideration thereof, Dy. Commissioner, Ferozpur appointed Inquiry Officer finding reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory for conducting inquiry into the charge of embezzlement. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not submit any memo of charges along with annexures of documents and list of witnesses nor did summon the petitioner and made an exparte inquiry report on 06.03.1981. The petitioner was found guilty of charges. Based upon the findings of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner through publication in the newspapers dated 18.09.1981. It is contended that Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was biased and prejudiced and wanted to involve the petitioner in a criminal case. He, accordingly, lodged a report with SSP, Ferozpur on 13.10.1980 when inquiry was still pending against the petitioner. The Dy. Commissioner, Ferozpur vide order dated 28.04.1982 terminated the services of the petitioner. In the meantime, on the basis of the report lodged by Sub Divisional Officer (C), an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 09.11.1982. The proceedings in a criminal case were terminated on 28.02.1989 with acquittal of the petitioner. On his acquittal, he made an application on 18.08.1989 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozpur for his reinstatement with all consequential service benefits including back wages etc. by setting aside the termination order. The Dy. Commissioner, Ferozpur rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 10.11.1989. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that before rejection of the application opinion was sought from the District Attorney, Ferozpur who opined that the petitioner be reinstated as the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal and the period from 28.02.1989 to 12.08.1989 be also treated as leave of the kind due. It is further averred in the writ petition that Additional Deputy Commissioner again sent the case back to the District Attorney so as to get adverse report against the petitioner. District Attorney, Ferozpur at the instance of Additional Deputy Commissioner changed his opinion and gave a fresh report dated 06.11.1989 stating therein that acquittal of the petitioner is on flimsy grounds as the witnesses have resiled. He further opined that the inquiry was still in force and an employee cannot be reinstated unless his dismissal in a departmental enquiry is quashed by some competent authority. On this report of the District Attorney, application of the petitioner had been rejected. Being aggrieved of order of rejection, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Ferozpur with another representation. This representation also did not find favour with the Commissioner and came to be rejected vide letter dated 20.09.1990. It seems that the petitioner had also preferred some appeal before the Commissioner. This appeal also resulted in dismissal on 31.08.1990. Aggrieved of the order, a revision petition came to be filed before the Financial Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.04.1992.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged order of his termination and order of revisional authority in this writ petition. The impugned orders are challenged primarily on the following grounds: - - (i) That the charges in departmental enquiry and criminal case being identical based upon same set of allegations, are not sustainable on account of acquittal of the petitioner by the criminal court, particularly, when judgment of the criminal court has attained finality; (ii) That the Inquiry Officer proceeded exparte against the petitioner and never summoned him. The petitioner was also not granted any opportunity of cross examination nor allowed to lead his own evidence resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. In so far as 2nd ground is concerned, I have perused the inquiry report and the record produced by the respondents. Even in the reply filed in this case, it is specifically averred that the petitioner was duly served with the notice before the Inquiry Officer. He appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 27.03.1980, 21.04.1980, 20.05.1980, 11.06.1980 and 27.06.1980 and thereafter he deliberately absented from the inquiry proceedings on 16.07.1980 and inquiry was proceeded exparte. The petitioner never made an attempt for setting aside exparte proceedings till final report dated 06.03.1981 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Apart from the fact that the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer for number of hearing and thereafter absented, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the simple reasons that the inquiry is not under challenge in this writ petition. What has been assailed is the order of termination and final order passed by the revisional authority on the representation of the petitioner after his acquittal. This writ petition was filed on 23.02.1992 whereas inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 06.03.1981, i.e. 11 years after the inquiry was concluded. The grievance of the petitioner in respect to non observation of the principles of natural justice during the course of inquiry have to be evaluated and looked into independent of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings. Even after the submission of the inquiry report, the petitioner never bothered to challenge the inquiry report in any manner whatsoever. The averments made in the writ petition that he was never summoned by the Inquiry Officer are falsified, rather absolutely incorrect and thus amount to misrepresentation of facts that he was not duly served in the inquiry. In fact, he appeared before the Inquiry Officer and participated in the proceedings for few hearings and thereafter conveniently absented himself paving way for exparte proceedings. When the petitioner himself chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings despite notice, he cannot be permitted to argue on the question of violation of principles of natural justice. This grievance of the petitioner in this regard is without any substance and is liable to be rejected.
(3.) IT is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that acquittal in the criminal proceedings leads to setting aside of the disciplinary proceedings is sufficient to set aside disciplinary proceedings, both being based upon identical facts and set of allegations.;