- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order, Annexure P/4 dated 25.2.2003, vide which, he was dismissed from service and also to quash order, Annexure P/6 dated 24.8.2005, vide which, his appeal was dismissed. In this writ petition, further prayer has also been made to quash enquiry report, Annexure P/1 dated 26.11.2002.
(2.) It is apparent from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in the year 1996. On 4.9.2001, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 7(13) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was allegation against him that he had accepted Rs.200/- as illegal gratification, from one Ashok Kumar, to supply a certified copy of order dated 9.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No.215 of 19.8.2000. On above mentioned allegation, a departmental enquiry was conducted. Said Ashok Kumar had appeared as a witness and supported allegation leveled against the petitioner. Enquiry officer found him guilty vide enquiry report, Annexure P/1. In the meantime, in his criminal trial, the petitioner was exonerated by giving him a benefit of doubt. The competent authority, by taking note of findings given by the enquiry officer, vide order, Annexure P/4, dismissed him from service. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "I have gone through the entire matter. The plea taken by the delinquent is that Enquiry Officer did not make him aware that he is entitled to defence counsel. The delinquent is an educated person who is working in the Court and has vast experience of law and rules. He did not feel the necessity of any such assistance and therefore made no request for that. His contention that both criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry cannot go side by side and the punishment in the departmental proceedings will be cases of double jeopardy also lis not legally correct. He himself had withdrawn the application moved by him for stay of these proceedings. Now he cannot have any objection of the departmental proceedings and continued alongwith the criminal prosecution. His contention that Ashok Kumar complainant who had allegedly given the bribe has resiled from his earlier statement is of no help to him. The charge against the delinquent official in this case was that he was caught red handed by the Vigilance Police while accepting a bribe of Rs.200/- from one Ashok Kumar for the issuance of copy of order dated 9.8.2001 in Civil Suit No.215 of 19.8.2000 titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Dalip Singh relating to the Court of Sh.S.S.Mann, Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Barnala. Ashok Kumar fully supported this allegation against the delinquent. The copy of the statement alleged to have been made by Ashok Kumar in the criminal case cannot be preferred over the sworn testimony of Ashok Kumar made by him before the enquiry officer in these proceedings. The charge against him stands fully proved before the enquiry officer. Keeping in view the delinquency committed by Sh.Jatinder Singh, copyist that he accepted illegal gratification of Rs.200/- from Ashok Kumar for issuing copy of order dated 9.8.2001 in Civil Suit No.215 of 19.8.2000 titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Dalip Singh and he was apprehended by the Vigilance Police red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.200/- from Ashok Kumar, penalty of dismissal from service would commensurate with the delinquency committed by him." He came in appeal and on administrative side, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge on 24.8.2005. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) It has vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been exonerated by the trial Court on criminal side, the punishing authority, was not justified in passing order, Annexure P/4. It has further been argued that when his appeal was dismissed vide order, Annexure P/6, he was not heard. This Court feels that both these arguments deserve to be rejected.;