Satinder Dhawan vs State of Haryana and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by a dismissed employee of the Haryana State Lotteries, Department of Finance, Chandigarh praying that the impugned order of dismissal from service, dated 30.10.2002, Annexure P13, be set aside, as the same was not passed in consonance with the rules and principles of natural justice. It has been further prayed that impugned order, Annexure P13, so far as it ordered recovery of Rs. 11,78,398.50 paise along with interest, be also quashed.

Mr. D.K. Bhatti, counsel appearing for the Petitioner has primarily raised the following two arguments:

i) It is stated that regular enquiry was concluded in the year 1999. However, order of dismissal was passed only on 30.10.2002, thus, a delay of 3 years in concluding the proceedings, has caused prejudice to the Petitioner.

ii) It is submitted that Petitioner on the same set of allegations was acquitted by the criminal Court and the judgment of acquittal was not considered by the Appellate Authority, even though the judgment of acquittal in a criminal case has attained finality.

It is not disputed that Petitioner was posted as an Assistant in the Respondent-Haryana State Lotteries Department in the year 1987. It is alleged that during the course of his employment, he committed embezzlement in the sale of lottery tickets. Therefore, charges were drawn against him and a regular enquiry was held against him. On the observations made by this Court that mere delay is not sufficient to infer prejudice and both departmental and criminal proceedings can continue together, counsel has very fairly stated that he cannot join the issue with this Court, so far as this observation is concerned, but counsel states that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the effect of judgment of acquittal. Counsel states that had the Appellate Authority perused the judgment of acquittal, it would have come to a conclusion that Petitioner has committed no offence. Counsel states that Petitioner has not been acquitted while granting him the benefit of doubt. Counsel has read the grounds of appeal, where a reference has been made to the acquittal of the Petitioner from the criminal Court.

Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the Respondents has read the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and has very candidly stated that the effect of acquittal of the Petitioner by the criminal Court has not been considered. In these circumstances, Mr. Bhatia has very fairly stated that the Appellate Authority is ready and willing to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment recorded by the criminal Court, wherein acquittal of the Petitioner has been recorded. However, Mr.Bhatia has stated that this will not preclude the Appellate Authority to examine the judgment of criminal Court thread-bare and come to a conclusion that acquittal of the Petitioner was on a technical ground.

Be that as it may, considering the very fair stands taken by counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal afresh, after taking into consideration the judgment of acquittal, whereby the Petitioner has been acquitted. The Appellate Authority shall examine the report of the regular enquiry, other various documents and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the criminal court and thereafter shall pass a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Petitioner is also granted the liberty to supplement his grounds of appeal.