- (1.) The order dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure P1) passed by the Managing Director of Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewell Corporation, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") respondent No. 2 is subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has been denied pay and emoluments in respect of his suspension period commencing from 12.7.1996 to 30.6.2002. It has further been ordered that the aforementioned period is to be treated as a non-duty period for all intents and purposes. The punishment of warning has already been administered to him. It is undisputed that the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Cashier was placed under suspension on 12.7.1996 on the registration of FIR No. 242 dated 12.7.1996 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Gohana. During the pendency of the criminal trial, the services of the petitioner were retrenched on 30.6.2002. On 24.1.2002, the petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge, Sonepat as the charge against him could not be proved. He approached respondent No. 2 for his reinstatement in the service by moving an application dated 17.2.2002 (Annexure P5). However, a charge sheet was served on him on 24.10.2002 (Annexure P7). The petitioner sent a detailed reply to the charge sheet on 28.10.2002 (Annexure P8). He was granted personal hearing on 20.11.2002. After the personal hearing, the Managing Director of the Corporation, passed the impugned order and the operative part of the same reads as under :- "After thoughtful consideration of all the material record, judgment of the Special Judge, Sonepat, charge-sheet and reply to the charge-sheet, I hereby order to treat the period of suspension from 12.7.1996 to 30.6.2002 afternoon as non-duty period, it has been observed that Shri Shiv Kumar Goyal was charge-sheeted in FIR No. 242 of 12.07.1996 under Section 7, 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as he was involved in taking the illegal gratification from Shri Phool Singh complainant in that case. After due adjudication of the case, the Ld. Special Judge, Sonepat found that the prosecution version in contradictory by its own witnesses and thus the case of the prosecutor becomes highly doubtful therefore, the Ld. Special Judge, extended the benefit of doubt to Shri Shiv Kumar Goyal. Keeping in view the findings of the Ld. Special Judge, Sonepat and conduct of the official, I am fully convinced that Sh. Shiv Kumar is fully responsible for the acts and deeds committed by him while discharging his duties. Since, he has already been retrenched by the Corporation on 'Closure of the Corporation'. I hereby order to treat the period of suspension from 12.7.1996 to 30.6.2002 after noon non-duty period of all intents and purposes with a warning. It is further ordered that he shall not be entitled to any extra pay, emoluments except the subsistence allowance admissible under the rules".
(2.) Mr. K.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the Corporation has decided to drop the chargesheet for inflicting major punishment on the petitioner then nothing remains to record a finding that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the acts and misdeeds allegedly committed by him while discharging his duties. According to learned counsel, on the retrenchment of the petitioner on 30.6.2002 by the Corporation the relationship of employer and employee has come to an end and no punishment in any case could have been inflicted upon him unless the charge sheet was issued before his retrenchment or it was in respect of an event which has happened four years prior to the date of his retrenchment. He has further argued that FIR on the basis of allegations of taking illegal gratification was registered on 12.7.1996 and the charge sheet was issued on 24.10.2002 which is much beyond the period of four years as stipulated in Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (as applicable to Haryana) Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the order is without any justification and no enquiry proceedings could have been initiated nor any show cause notice could have been issued for infliction of a major or a minor penalty on the petitioner. He has placed reliance on Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II (As applicable to Haryana).
(3.) Mr. R.N. Lohan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation against the order dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure P1). On merits, he has argued that despite acquittal he cannot be held entitled to reinstatement with grant of all consequential benefits along with back wages as a matter of course. In that regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra", 1997 AIR(SC) 1434 and argued that the disciplinary Authority could have enquired into the misconduct or after issuing show cause notice, passed an appropriate order by treating suspension period as period not spent on duty.;