Ramesh Chand Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 9859 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramesh Chand Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 7 May, 2024

CWP-10494-2024 1
2024: PHHC:063040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.126 CWP-10494-2024
Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

Ramesh Chand Sharma .... Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA

Present: Mr. Abhinav Kalia, Advocate and
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

3 2 2

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for reinstatement in service with effect from 01.08.2004.

2. As per facts apparent on record, the petitioner, who was working as an adhoc clerk, was dismissed from service after the charges of embezzlement were proved against him in the disciplinary enquiry, vide order dated 09.08.2007, Annexure P-3. His appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Department, vide order dated 14.06.2012, Annexure P-5. The dismissal was challenged before this Court by filing CWP No.17882 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2015, Annexure P-8. Letters Patent Appeal filed against the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2016, Annexure P-9. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Division Bench again by filing an application with a prayer to recall/modify the order dated 20.05.2016, on the ground that the same is causing impediment in his re-engagement by the Department. Considering the plea

sympathetically, it has been clarified by the Division Bench if the authorities

CWP-10494-2024 2 2024: PHHC:063040

are inclined to reconsider the applicant/appellant's case sympathetically, the order of withdrawal of appeal shall not be any impediment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner stands acquitted of the criminal charges, vide judgment dated 21.01.2015, and the co-accused, who was acquitted with the petitioner, has been granted due service benefits by the Department. The petitioner has been making representations, Annexures P-11 to P-18, seeking similar benefits on account of parity, but the same have not been given which is illegal and a direction needs to be issued for his reinstatement.

4. Heard.

5. Once the challenge to petitioner's dismissal from service stands declined by this Court, there is no ground to entertain the present petition seeking a direction to consider his claim for reinstatement in service. He was dismissed from service on the basis of charges of embezzlement having been duly proved against him in the disciplinary enquiry, which was independent of the criminal charges for which he faced a separate trial. The Department was within its rights to proceed against him for the misconduct and take independent action, which led to his dismissal from service. Merely because he was acquitted of the criminal charges later by the trial Court, or that the co-accused has been given some benefits by the Department, would not give

any cause to the petitioner to approach the Court by filing this petition.

6. Dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 07.05.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No