HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16306/2021 Champa Nath S/o Shri Dhanna Nath, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Hariyamali, Police Station Bagdinagar, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Managing Director (Bank), Jodhpur Central Co-
Operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Executive Officer, The Jodhpur Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
29/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 20.11.2021 aggrieved against the order dated 31.01.2002, whereby the petitioner was removed from service.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that by order dated 31.01.2002, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of charge-sheet issued to him for defalcation of a sum of Rs.6,10,320/-. Subsequent thereto, in the criminal trial, the petitioner was convicted on 30.09.2010 (Annex.1), however, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate court on 29.08.2018 (Annex.3) has acquitted the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. (Downloaded on 29/11/2021 at 09:09:56 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-16306/2021] Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case pertaining to defalcation, he is entitled for reinstatement and consequential benefits.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at Annexure-2 dated 31.01.2002, reveals that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet in the year 1995 wherein the disciplinary authority, by the said order, came to the conclusion that as the petitioner did not produce any material in support of his case and did not give any satisfactory response, in exercise of the power under Rule 17(1)(c) of the Rules of 1969 as amended in the year 1991, the petitioner was removed from service.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the validity of the order dated 31.01.2002 at any point of time till filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner was thereafter convicted by the criminal court on 20.09.2010 (Annex.1) and that judgment has been reversed by the appellate court on 29.08.2018 (Annex.3).
Passing of the judgment dated 29.08.2018 acquitting the petitioner by the appellate court, cannot have any implication on the order dated 31.01.2002 (Annex.2) passed by the respondents, inasmuch as, the said order was not passed as a consequence of petitioner's conviction by the trial court. It could have been different, in case the services of the petitioner were put to an end after 2010 on account of his conviction and that conviction had been overturned subsequently, which is not the case. The (Downloaded on 29/11/2021 at 09:09:56 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-16306/2021] petitioner did not question the order dated 31.01.2002 (Annex.2) at the relevant time, the said order has become final and questioning its validity after a passage of about 20 years cannot be countenanced only on account of order passed by the appellate court acquitting the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 70-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 29/11/2021 at 09:09:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)