AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the charge -sheet dated 28.01.2003 (Annexure P -2) as also the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P -10), vide which now after an inordinate delay, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct the regular enquiry against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1987.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner while working as a Sub Divisional Officer got conducted the work of construction of a drain. According to the stand of the petitioner, the work was entrusted to a contractor and supervised primarily by the Gram Panchayat. An enquiry was ordered to be held by the Vigilance Department, Haryana on a complaint. In that vigilance enquiry, it was found that a long drain was shown constructed in Village Takhana, Block Nilokheri from the house of Raghubir son of Laghuram to the house of Jagdish son of Kishna Ram by preparing false record in connivance with the Sarpanch, Panchayat Secretary, Junior Engineer, Sub Divisional Officer Panchayati Raj and Block Development and Panchayat Officer resulting in embezzlement of Rs.6523/ -. On the basis of said finding recorded by the Vigilance Department, charge sheet dated 28.01.2003 (Annexure P -2) was served upon the petitioner. It would not be out of way to mention here that prior thereto, FIR No.18 dated 07.07.2000, under Sections 409/420/468/471/ 120 -B IPC was registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. Petitioner was one of the accused in the said FIR. Challan was presented against the petitioner along with others and thereafter charges were also framed. Petitioner was facing trial when the charge -sheet dated 28.01.2003 was served on him. He filed reply dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure P -3) to the charge -sheet. It appears that since the criminal case was pending against the petitioner, the department did not proceed any further with the departmental proceedings and waited the outcome of the criminal trial. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal found the petitioner guilty under Sections 409/ 420/468/471/120 -B IPC vide judgment dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P -4). He was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/ - under Section 409 IPC, SI for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/ - under Section 420 IPC, SI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 468 IPC, SI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 471 IPC, SI for 6 months under Section 120 -B IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergone SI for 15 days each for Sections 409/420/468 and 471 IPC with all sentences to run concurrently.
(3.) THIS order was passed on 17.12.2010. Petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgment dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P -6), where the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt.;