Mandeep vs Ministry Of Railway, Govt.Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3055 Del

$~7.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3906/2016
                                           Date of decision: 5th July, 2017
        MANDEEP                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.

                          versus

        MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, GOVT.OF INDIA&ORS. Respondents
                      Through Mr. J.K. Singh, Standing Counsel & Ms.
                      Madhulika Agarwal, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        The petitioner was appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the

Railway Protection Force. Subsequently, the petitioner was discharged on

account of his involvement in FIR No. 62/2012 dated 25th April, 2012

under Section 323/324//506/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station

Julana, Haryana.

2.      The petitioner had duly mentioned the aforesaid FIR in his

attestation form on 18th May, 2014.        Thus, this is not a case of

concealment.

3.      The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 748/2016

challenging the order of discharge. He had also relied upon judgment of

acquittal dated 1st December, 2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

W.P. (C) No. 3906/2016                                         Page 1 of 3
 in CIS No. 39586/2013 titled State versus Mahender and Others. This

writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24 th February, 2016 with a

direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in

the light of the said judgment and affidavit dated 8 th February, 2016. The

respondents were asked to pass a speaking order in accordance with law

under intimation to the petitioner.      Certain other directions were also

issued.

4.      The respondents vide order dated 11th April, 2016 have rejected the

representation made by the petitioner recording that the petitioner was

acquitted vide judgment dated 1st December, 2015 whereas the discharge

order was passed earlier on 17th September, 2015. It has been observed

that the petitioner was under trial on the date of issue of discharge order.

5.      We do not think that the impugned order dated 11th April, 2016 can

be sustained in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme

Court vide judgment dated 21st July, 2016 in Avtar Singh versus Union of

India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The respondents would have to re-

examine the entire case afresh in the light of the observations and the ratio

pronounced by the Supreme Court. The said exercise will be undertaken

by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of

this order is received. It will be open to the petitioner to make a further

representation highlighting the relevant paragraphs/sub-paras of the

judgment on which he relies with reference to the criminal case in

W.P. (C) No. 3906/2016                                             Page 2 of 3
 question. We hope and trust that the respondent authorities will give due

consideration and notice the observations and ratio of the Supreme Court

and the parameters/criteria prescribed therein. The respondents would pass

a speaking order dealing with the contentions raised and the

criteria/parameters prescribed by the Supreme Court.              In case the

respondents accept the petitioner's representation, the petitioner would be

entitled to continuity of service and other benefits as may have accrued to

him in terms of the directions already issued in the order dated 24 th

February, 2016. Needless to state that in case of an adverse order, the

petitioner would be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law.

        The writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.



                                                SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. JULY 05, 2017 VKR/NA