ESI VARENDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-ESI Varender Sharma @ Birender Singh has filed the present writ petition inter alia with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P-10).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.01.2020, the Competent Authority has taken a decision that the petitioner's services are not required by the Department beyond the age of 55 years. He further submits that in this memo dated 21.01.2020, it has been made clear that the petitioner shall stand retired from service on the dates mentioned in the said memo. Learned counsel makes various submissions. Firstly, he submits that mere registration of FIR as mentioned in the memo, could be no valid ground to retire the petitioner. In this regard, he places reliance on two Division Bench judgments i.e. dated 24.12.2008, passed in CWP-8403-2006 titled as Ranbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others and also judgment dated 06.03.2001, passed in CWP- 11878-1999 titled as ASI Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana . Para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 04.03.2020 in CRR-180-2020 titled as Jasmer Singh and another vs. State of Haryana , this Court has stayed further proceedings before the trial Court in the said FIR. Third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry (was sought to be initiated on an earlier occasion but relying on the same/similar allegations, as in the present FIR) was challenged in CWP-23246-2017 before this Court. On 01.11.2017, this Court had ordered that departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are ordered to be held in abeyance with liberty to the respondents to seek sanction of the District Magistrate for proceedings against the petitioner departmentally. It has been further ordered that statements of witnesses should not be recorded in the disciplinary proceedings till those witnesses (if they are witnesses in the criminal proceedings) have testified in such criminal proceedings. Copy of this order is also attached as Annexure P-5 with the present writ petition. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned ACR (Annexure P-2) as well as the rejection order dated 14.10.2017 (Annexure P-4), are also liable to set aside because the said adverse comments and rejection of the representation are in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Gujarat vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah , 1999(1) SCT 208, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that pendency of the criminal cases was not sufficient to doubt a person's integrity. In this view of the matter, the petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal/revision/review before the Competent Authority.