Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Narain vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051538-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:051538-DB
(103) LPA-2031-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 18.04.2024
Jai Narain .......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-5080 & 5081-LPA-2023
Applications for condonation of delay of 182 days in re-filing and
69 days in filing the appeal, are allowed, in view of the averments made in the
application, duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 182 days in
re-filing and 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
LPA-2031-2023 (O&M)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order dated 21.12.2022 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-9737-
2017, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Challenge
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051538-DB
in the present writ petition was made to the order dated 27.12.2012
(Annexure P-4) whereby the appellant had been dismissed under Article 311
(2) (a) of the Constitution of India, which order has further been upheld in
appeal, vide order dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) by the Commissioner,
Hisar Division.
2. The sole argument as such of the counsel for the appellant was
that while noting that the revision petition was still pending before the
authorities, the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the issue on merits
and noticed that there was an inquiry report and, therefore, came to the
conclusion that standard of proof in criminal cases would be higher than civil
proceedings. In departmental proceedings a fact may be held proved on
preponderance of probabilities, which would be sufficient to proceed against
an employee. The acquittal as such by another learned Single Judge did not
weigh while dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there was
statement of Mohinder Singh, Tehsildar, which had confirmed the recovery of
Rs.1,000/- taken from the complainant. The learned Single Judge has further
went on to hold that the Inquiry Officer had recorded the correct finding on the
basis of the material placed before it and no fault could be found with the same
and acting upon the report of the Inquiry Officer wherein charges against the
writ petitioner were held to be duly proved and the punishing authority after
complying with the further procedure in accordance with the law, inflicted the
penalty of dismissal from service on the writ petitioner.
3. Counsel for the appellant has, accordingly, argued that a perusal
of the order of the punishing authority would go on to show that the there was
no discussion regarding the inquiry report, apart from the bare mention that a
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051538-DB
regular inquiry had been done by the SDM. The said fact has also been
recorded by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
4. Primarily the dismissal order was passed on the order of
conviction, which had been recorded in FIR No.3 dated 31.01.2007 under
Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 lodged at Police
Station SVB, Hisar, by the Special Judge on 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-5). The
appellant had also preferred an appeal bearing Service Appeal No.4 of 2012
and kept it pending. Only after his acquittal by this Court in CRA-S-2919-SB-
2010 on 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-6), he pressed the appeal before the
Commissioner, which was dismissed on 29.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) the
ground that acquittal was on the ground of benefit of doubt and there was no
explanation of the employee and why the currency as such was recovered
alongwith phenolphthalein powder, which was found present on the person of
the appellant. The appellant then filed civil writ petition in the year 2017,
apart from the fact that he had also preferred the revision petition before the
State. He had mentioned in the writ petition also that he hadmoved
representations to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to
Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, Haryana for his reinstatement,
as per representation dated 01.10.2016 (Annexures P-9).
5. A perusal of the copy of revision petition (Annexure R-1) would
go on to show that it was preferred against the order of dismissal dated
27.12.2011 and the subsequent order whereby Commissioner had dismissed
his appeal on 29.08.2016. In the revision petition, he had taken the ground
that bare perusal of inquiry would also reveal that the charge was not proved
against him and dismissal order was bad in the eyes of law.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051538-DB
6. The State also in its reply has taken the objection that since there
was an alternative and efficacious remedy available, the writ petitioner who
was not in service could not pursue two remedies.The law is settled regarding
the alternative and efficacious remedy which is available. Reference can be
made to the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs.
Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110. The learned Single Judge instead of
relegating the appellant to the revisional authorities chose to delve on the
merits of the case. We do not wish to further elaborate on the reasoning given
by the learned Single Judge, as it might prejudice the mind as such of the
revisional authority.
7. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that instead of deciding
the issue on merits, the matter should have been relegated to the revisional
authority to decide the issue. Prima facie we are of the opinion that the
inquiry report on the basis of which the dismissal as such was founded and
which weighed with the learned Single Judge would require a fresh look by
the revisional authority. The report in place (Annexure P-2) would go on to
show that it is a three page enquiry report and the complainant did not support
the department. On the statement of one Mohinder Singh, Tehsildar, the
charge of accepting the money has been held to be proved. Counsel for the
appellant has also pointed out from the judgment in CRA-S-2919-SB-2010
that Mohinder Singh, Tehsildar was produced for two purposes, firstly
regarding the mutation which had been sanctioned by the appellant and also
that he was witness of the trap at the spot, but only on receiving signal from
the shadow witness had reached the spot. The dismissal order is only based on
the fact that the conviction order had been recorded and the said authority
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051538-DB
never applied its mind to the enquiry report and whether the same could be
made the basis of the dismissal.
8. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and relegate the appellant to his revisional remedy which is
pending before the competent authority. Since the dismissal was in the year
2012, it is expected that the revisional authority shall take steps to ensure that
the revision is decided expeditiously. It is, however, made clear that we have
not interfered in the order of dismissal and the further order of appeal.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present letters patent appeal
is partly allowed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
