Sabina, J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the orders dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure P -2), 21.10.2013 (Annexure P -8) and 03.12.2013 (Annexure P - 9).
(2.) Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Constable with respondent No. 4 vide order dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P -1). However, petitioner was arrested on 03.12.2011 in FIR No. 270 dated 24.10.2011, registered at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, under Ss. 302/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' in short). Petitioner was not named in the FIR but was later charge - sheeted under Sec. 120B IPC on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by his co -accused Roshan Devi. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 09.12.2011 on account of his involvement in the criminal case. Petitioner and his co -accused were acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 05.01.2013. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation to the respondents that he be reinstated in service. However, the said representation moved by the petitioner was not decided by the respondents. Hence, petitioner filed CWP No. 17047 of 2013 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2013 directing the respondent No. 3 (in the present case) to dispose of the representation within two months. In compliance of the said order, respondent No. 3 has passed the order dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure P -8). Appeal filed by the petitioner was declined vide order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P -9) on the ground that after the passing of the order dated 21.10.2013 no further departmental remedy was available to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of the petitioner were terminated on account of his involvement in the criminal case. However, petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case and was liable to be reinstated. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on "Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005(1) SCT 576 wherein, it was held as under: - "A perusal of the order passed by the respondents removing the petitioner from services shows that the respondents had passed the same basing it purely on the conviction of the petitioner. The order states that in view of the conviction, the petitioner is removed from service on account of conduct which led to his conviction. Excepting for the aforesaid sentence, the order does not elude to any circumstances which could be belated to the conduct of the petitioner leading to the conviction. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this short ground as it has been passed, without taking into consideration the relevant material. In any event, the petitioner having been acquitted in appeal, the justification of the order of removal no longer existed. The High Court has ordered the acquittal of the petitioner after threadbare examination of the evidence. It has been noticed that the complainant, Puran Singh PW -8 was the owner of 8 -1/2 killas of land situated in Village Jundla. He further stated that about two years prior to the recording of the statement in Court on 05.08.1997, he had gone to the office of Vigilance Department and reported against Haryana State Electricity Board Office Natha Ram for demanding Rs. 7,500/ -. This amount had been demanded for installation of new transformer as old transformer was overloaded and his tubewell meter was not functioning properly. He also stated that the had earlier paid Rs. 3,200/ - to Natha Ram. He further stated that Junior Engineer of his feeder was Sukhbir Singh Malik. He then categorically stated that he did not know Shashi Kumar, the petitioner. It was also stated by him that the petitioner never remained Junior Engineer of his feeder. He never demanded any amount from him nor he paid any amount to him. This witness was declared hostile, but nothing useful emerged from his cross -examination. In fact in the cross -examination, he further admitted that there was a scuffle among HSEB employees and the police employees. He reiterated that he did not pay any amount to the petitioner. Therefore, the High Court concluded that according to the statement of the complainant, the petitioner did not know the complainant nor did the petitioner demand any amount from him. Even the trap witness PW -2 in the cross -examination admitted that he was an employee of the Vigilance Department, Karnal. He had remained posted as a peon for the last 10 to 15 years at Karnal. He further admitted that he had joined 3 -4 raids with the Vigilance Officer. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that PW -2 was not an independent witness as he was under the control of DSP (Vigilance). The High Court relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v/s. J.B. Singh, : 2000 Crl.L.J. 4591 wherein it has been held that an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be established unless there is evidence to prove the act of demand of illegal gratification. Relying on the aforesaid ratio of law, the petitioner has been acquitted. In such circumstances, it can hardly be said that the acquittal of the petitioner is not honourable.";