Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited ... vs Sandeep Jailwal And Another on 14 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036419-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:036419-DB
(104) LPA-1415-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 14.03.2024
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Jailwal and another
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the appellants.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-3596-LPA-2023
Application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit. Delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-1415-2023 (O&M)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2023 passed in
CWP-14879-2019 'Sandeep Jailwal Vs. State of Haryana and others',
whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 23.05.2019 was
set aside, whereby the services of the writ petitioner had been dispensed
with during the period of probation, on the ground that his work had not
been found satisfactory, while working as Assistant Engineer/Electrical.
The offer of appointment dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) was kept in
mind while dispensing with the services by the appellants.
2. The Learned Single Judge has noticed keeping in view the
stand taken by the appellants that on account of the police verification
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036419-DB
LPA-1415-2023 (O&M)
done and as per the report submitted on 12.06.2018 (Annexure R-2/2)
wherein it had been found that there was an FIR bearing No.848 dated
03.11.2016 under Sections 323/325/506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
registered at Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad was lodged against the writ
petitioner, the services were sought to be dispensed with, though it was not
on account of the work and conduct as such of the writ petitioner. The
Learned Single Judge has also found that the writ petitioner had been
given additional charge on 14.01.2019 of 66 KV Sub-Station, HVPNL,
Gurugram, before the order of dispensing of the services dated 23.05.2019
(Annexure P-6) was passed and therefore, it was during probation period,
which was apparently satisfactory. Keeping in view the fact that the
allegations in the FIR are general in nature and the writ petitioner was not
armed with any lethal weapon and injuries were simple in nature, except
one injury on the complainant of fracture of right nasal bone, a finding was
recorded that there was no concealment on the part of the writ petitioner.
Information was to be given at the time of applying regarding the fact that
whether he had been convicted prior to his appointment and there was no
such column to inform about pendency of such criminal proceedings
against him and the FIR in question was not regarding moral turpitude
which would render him unsuitable for Government service.
3. While referring to the relevant columns, the Learned Single
Judge has found that the offer of appointment dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure
P-3) there was a Column No.3 (IV) whereby the information was to be
given that he was not a dismissed Government/Public Servant or a person
convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. Similarly in the form
which had been filled up on 30.11.2017 (Annexure R-2/1), Column No.13
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036419-DB
LPA-1415-2023 (O&M)
talked about conviction by Court of any offence and particulars had to be
given and, therefore, concealment also while filling up the form was also
not in the case in question. It was only on account of the fact that in the
appointment letter dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-4), there was a column
that there is no FIR/Criminal Case pending against him, which would
render him ineligible or unsuitable for appointment, his services had been
dispensed with. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that there was no
material on record to indicate that during the probation the work and
conduct of the writ petitioner had not been satisfactory, the order was set
aside.
4. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants
has fairly placed on record the judgment dated 28.07.2023 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, whereby the writ petitioner has
been acquitted of the charge against him. A perusal of the said judgment
would go on to show that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt against
accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The presence of the
writ petitioner Sandeep Jailwal at the time of incidence was doubted, since
DW-2 Vinod Kumar Sexana had stated that he was present at their house.
The parties are closely related, which would be clear from the statement of
PW-4 Shamsher Singh that one of the accused Nihal Singh was his
brother-in-law and there was a dispute regarding Rs.2.5 crores having
worked as partners and the house was purchased by them through the
money of partnership firm.
5. Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered
opinion that the Learned Single Judge was justified while holding that it
was not case of moral turpitude in any manner. The appointment as such
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036419-DB
LPA-1415-2023 (O&M)
was on the basis of grade secured in GATE Score of 2017 and there was
no such column which had been filled up wherein the writ petitioner had
concealed the facts regarding the lodging of the FIR. It was only in the
offer of appointment wherein a condition was put that if there was
something against him which would render him unsuitable for services on
verification of his character and antecedents later on, the appointment
would be subjected to said condition. The dispute in question was with
close family members and, thus, was nowhere related to the discharge of
duties or with the employer and has, thus, been rightly held to be out of the
ambit of moral turpitude.
6. In such circumstances, the dispensing of the services during
the probation period only on account of the fact that he was involved in a
criminal case, was not proper application of mind by the authorities and
the writ petitioner was seriously prejudiced on account of the action of the
appellants, which has been correctly rectified by the Learned Single Judge
by putting him back in service.
7. Resultantly, no ground has been made out to interfere in the
well reasoned order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the present
letters patent appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
14.03.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
