Sukhdev Sharma vs The Presiding Officer And Another

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhdev Sharma vs The Presiding Officer And Another on 7 May, 2024

Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Kirti Singh

2024: PHHC:062775-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

107 LPA-836-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.05.2024

Sukhdev Sharma ... Appellant
Versus

The Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh and another

.. Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:- Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
2k

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CM-2125-LPA-2023 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the appeal was filed within limitation but certain objections were raised by the Registry and after clearing the objections, the appeal was re-filed which resulted in delay of 15 days.

Heard. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on merits.

Consequently, the application is allowed and delay of 15 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-2126-LPA-2023 Allowed as prayed for.

SONIA GUGNANI 2024.05.08 06:47 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2024: PHHC:062775-DB LPA-836-2023 (O&M) -2- Main appeal The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Single Bench on 31.01.2023 whereby his writ petition bearing CWP No.26413-2022 challenging his termination from service had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that merely on the registration of an FIR against the appellant, his services were terminated without holding any enquiry which is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Heard.

4. The appellant was working as a Beldar with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh when an FIR bearing No.RCCHG2013A-0022 dated 11.09.2013 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him in a trap case as he was allegedly taking a bribe of Rs.2,000/-. The services of the appellant are stated to have been terminated on 09.12.2013 w.e.f. 11.09.2013. The appellant had been issued a show cause notice as to why his services be not terminated but instead of filing reply, he sought extension of time to file a response which was not granted by the competent authority and his services were terminated. The appellant was tried and convicted in the aforenoted FIR vide judgment dated 30.05.2019 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is stated to have preferred an appeal thereagainst which is pending adjudication before the Single Bench of this Court. His sentence is stated to have been suspended but his conviction has not been stayed.

SONIA GUGNANI 2024.05.08 06:47 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2024: PHHC:062775-DB LPA-836-2023 (O&M) -3-

5. In the aforenoted facts and circumstances especially when the appellant has been convicted in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the conviction stands till date, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition seeking the relief of reinstatement in service.

6. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. In the event of the appellant succeeding in the criminal appeal, it would be open to him to file a representation to the competent authorities which would be considered in accordance with law.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE May 07, 2024 sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2024.05.08 06:47 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh