Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kumar @ Surjit Singh vs State Of U.T Chandigarh And Ors on 19 January, 2023
CWP-13626-2022 1
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-13626-2022
Date of decision : 19.01.2023
Surjit Kumar @ Surjit Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate
for the respondents-U.T.Chandigarh.
***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226
Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the letter dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-7), whereby
representation moved by him for his re-appointment as Safai Karamchari,
was rejected.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed on
compassionate grounds as Safai Karamchari on 18.04.2022 by Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh on daily wage basis, but because of his false
implication in case FIR No.125 dated 18.07.2004 registered under
Sections 341, 354 and 506 at Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh, he
faced trial in the said case, wherein his conviction was recorded on
19.10.2006 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel submits that against the said
1 of 3
judgment of conviction, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and
during the pendency of the appeal, his services were regularized on
03.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) after completion of the probation period.
Learned counsel has pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner was
also dismissed on 14.07.2010 (Annexure P-3), therefore, he preferred
criminal revision i.e. CRR-2061-2010, wherein the parties entered into a
settlement and on the basis of the same, this Court vide decision dated
08.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) had set aside the conviction and quashed the
FIR, but before this, services of the petitioner were terminated through
communication bearing No.MOH/EA-II/2015 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel further submits that after final adjudication
of the criminal proceedings, he moved representation to the Medical
Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Sector- 17, Chandigarh requesting
him to allow the petitioner to join the service again, but the said request
has been declined through the impugned communication dated
04.10.2021 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel submits that since the FIR
has been quashed, there is no impediment in his joining the service again
with the Municipal Corporation, therefore, the impugned communication
be set aside.
After hearing learned counsel and examining the material on
record, this Court finds that in the criminal case, the prosecution
successfully brought home the guilt of the petitioner and judgment of
conviction was further upheld by the appellate Court. No doubt, the
revision petition against the judgment passed by the appellate court was
2 of 3
pending consideration, but before the decision of revision the petitioner
was dismissed from service in the year 2015.
Concededly, the termination order dated (nil) passed in 2015
(Annexure P-4) was never challenged by the petitioner, and he simply
made request in May 2021 seeking permission of respondent-Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh to allow him to join the service again and the
same has been declined. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the decision dated
08.03.2018, which was passed by the revisional Court subsequent to his
dismissal from service in the year 2015.
Resultantly, no ground is made out for exercise of extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ BAJAJ)
JUDGE
19.01.2023
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
