Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganesh Jat vs Union Of India And Others on 25 September, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127454-DB
1
CM-4152-53-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-1758-2024
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-4152-53-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-1758-2024
Date of Decision: September 25, 2024
GANESH JAT ..... Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents.
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside order dated 07.02.2023
passed by learned Single Judge whereby CWP-2415-2023 filed by appellant (writ
petitioner) was dismissed.
2. Appellant filed above said writ petition for setting aside orders
dated 02.01.2023 and 13.01.2022. Appellant, who had joined Central Reserve
Police Force on 10.04.2013 as Constable was arrested in FIR No. 167/2015
under Sections 380 and 511 IPC registered at Police Station Partap Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. He was suspended vide order dated 29.04.2015 w.e.f.
23.03.2015. He was also charge sheeted on 23.06.2015 for not disclosing the
information in question. Appellant was yet again involved in another FIR No.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127454-DB
CM-4152-53-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-1758-2024
92/2015 under Sections 380 and 457 IPC registered at Police Station Fagi,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. He was released on regular bail in August, 2015. He
submitted his reply in response to notice dated 23.06.2015. It is claimed that on
18.09.2015, his suspension order was revoked and appellant was taken back in
service but on the same date, notice of termination from service was issued to
him under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
to the effect that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of
expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice. Appeal filed by appellant
challenging his termination was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2016.
3. Pursuant to his acquittal in both the cases vide judgments dated
10.05.2017 and 26.02.2021, appellant submitted representation on 08.09.2021
seeking reinstatement on the basis of his acquittal. However, vide order dated
13.01.2022 his representation was rejected. Appellant further approached
Director General, Central Reserve Police Force on 09.03.2022 under Rule 30 of
CRPF Rules, 1995. His representation was rejected vide order dated 02.01.2023
pursuant to order dated 18.10.2022 passed in CWP-23997-2022.
4. Aggrieved therefrom, CWP-2415-2023 was filed, which has been
dismissed by learned Single Bench while specifically observing that termination
order dated 18.09.2015 is not stigmatic. It is further observed that though charge
sheet dated 23.06.2015 was served upon him for alleged misconduct of not
intimating the Department about his arrest, said inquiry proceedings were
withdrawn. Aggrieved of decision dated 07.02.2023, present appeal has been
filed.
5. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that once
appellant had been acquitted in both FIRs registered against him, the very basis
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127454-DB
CM-4152-53-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-1758-2024
of termination of his service is removed, therefore, it was incumbent upon
respondent - authorities to have reinstated the appellant. It is further submitted
that question whether acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt extended to the
appellant or an honouarable one is irrelevant in this situation.
6. Learned counsel for respondents (on advance notice) has opposed
the appeal while submitting that order passed by learned Single Bench has been
passed after proper consideration of the fact and circumstances of the matter.
Dismissal of appeal has been prayed for.
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the file, we
do not find any ground whatsoever to cause interference in this matter.
8. The factual aspect as narrated above is not in dispute. Admittedly,
appellant was on probation at the relevant time. Perusal of order dated
18.09.2015 reveals that it is indeed a non-stigmatic order whereby services of
the appellant have simplicitor been terminated with effect from the date of
expiry of one month from the date of service of notice. Mere acquittal of
appellant in criminal cases against him does not vest him with a right to seek
reinstatement. Appellate Authority vide detailed order dated 19.10.2016
correctly dismissed the appeal filed by appellant. Said orders dated 18.09.2015
and 19.10.2016 were never challenged by the appellant. After his acquittal, he
submitted representation dated 08.09.2021 for reinstatement. It is undeniable
that said delay is inexplicable. Merely to say that cause of action arose only
after acquittal of the appellant is devoid of any merit. Competent authorities had
found the appellant unworthy of being a member of Disciplined force and had
accordingly, terminated his services.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127454-DB
CM-4152-53-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-1758-2024
9. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any infirmity
or irregularity in impugned order dated 07.02.2023 which calls for interference.
10. No other argument has been raised.
11. In the given facts and circumstances as above, impugned order
dated 07.02.2023 is upheld. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of
any merit.
12. As the matter has been considered and decided on merits,
adjudication upon applications seeking condonation of delay of 445 days in re-
filing and 20 days in filing the appeal, are rendered academic. Applications are
disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
September 25, 2024 JUDGE
Rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
