- (1.) The Appellant (Original petitioner) by way of present intra Court Appeal has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 29.8.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 5126/1989, whereby the learned Single Judge had confirmed the order dated 26.9.1989 passed by the Appellate Authority (Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Sidha), regarding the termination of services of the appellant. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was working as LDC in the Account Section of the respondent institute. An FIR came to be registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 381, 467, 368 and 471 IPC in which it was alleged inter-alia that the appellant, stealing a Cheque No. 011395 from the cheque book, had forged the signatures of the officials and had encashed the said cheque from the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur on 18.10.1976. The appellant, thereafter, was placed under suspension on 27.10.1976, however the said suspension was subsequently revoked on 1.4.1985, on certain conditions, one of them being that the Disciplinary Authority shall take the disciplinary action under the Rules against the appellant for his mis-conduct, as may be deemed fit independently of the case already in progress and award such punishment as may be considered necessary. Thereafter, the Assistant Director Incharge, RRI, Jaipur served a memorandum along with the charge-sheet to the appellant on 11.2.1988 proposing to hold an inquiry under the provisions contained in the Bye-law 46 of the Bye-laws, governing the service conditions of the employees of the RRI read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The appellant submitted the written reply denying the allegations made against him and also raised certain contentions. The departmental proceedings thereafter were conducted in which the department examined 5 witnesses and produced number of documents in support of the allegations made against the appellant. The said witnesses were also cross-examined by the appellant.
(2.) The Inquiry Officer considered the evidence on record and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the appellant submitted the report, holding all the charges levelled against the appellant as proved. The Disciplinary Authority ' on the basis of the said report of Inquiry Officer, imposed the penalty terminating the services of the appellant with immediate effect, vide order dated 31.3.1989. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. The Director, CCRAS, who vide order dated 26.9.1989 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the penalty of termination of services imposed on the appellant. The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court by filing the writ petition No. 5126/1989 challenging the said order passed by the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said writ petition, it (sic) that the appellant came to be acquitted by the concerned Criminal Court at Jaipur, from the charges levelled against him vide order dated 19.9.1996 against which, the State had preferred an appeal and the respondents had filed the revision application "before the High Court. The learned Single Judge, however, vide the order dated 29.8.1997 dismissed the said writ petition. The appellant therefore, preferred the present intra Court appeal challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) The learned Advocate Mr. Ashvini Jaiman for the appellant raising various contentions, vehemently submitted that the order of the termination of services of the appellant passed by the Disciplinary Authority relying upon the report of Inquiry Officer, was bad in the eye of law, which the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate." The learned counsel submitted that the inquiry itself, having been initiated after such long time, was vitiated, in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in Case of M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and Others, 2006 5 SCC 88. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab and Others vs. Prem Sarup, 2008 12 SCC 522, in Case of State Bank of Hyderabad and Another vs. P. Kata Rao, 2008 15 SCC 657, in Case of G.M. Tak vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2006 5 SCC 446 Mr. Jaiman submitted that the criminal case having already been filed by the department, the departmental inquiry proceedings on the same facts and charges could not have been initiated by the department, and that even otherwise the Criminal Court having acquitted the appellant from all the charges levelled against him, the departmental proceedings against the appellant were also required to be dropped- Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S.N. Nizamuddin All Khan, 1976 AIR(SC) 1964 and in Case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Another, 2008 3 SCC 484 to submit that the departmental proceedings being quashi judicial proceedings, the principles of natural justice were required to be followed, which in the instant case were violated by the Inquiry Officer by not affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the hand writing expert, whose opinion was relied upon by him. Mr. Jaiman, also relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, 2010 4 SCC 491 to submit that mere filing or exhibiting a document could not amount to proof of its contents. Accordingly to him, since the contents of the opinion of hand writing expert having not been proved by the department, the Inquiry Officer could not have relied upon such document. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence,... and that the Disciplinary Authority had also not passed speaking order while imposing the penalty of termination of service relying upon the said findings of the Inquiry Officer. He also submitted that even otherwise the punishment of termination of services of the appellant was very harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant.;