RAM SARUP, DRIVER Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition relates to a question, of course, of high importance which already stands answered in various judicial pronouncements made from time to time. It can be summarised in the following manner :

(2.) The petitioner was a regular employee of Haryana Government. He was working as driver in the Health Department since 10.5.1980. Undisputedly, he tried to molest two ladies Smt. Mewa and Smt. Santosh. A criminal case vide FIR No. 130 dated 18.12.1986 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him and one other person. Both of them were tried on the said charge by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and acquitted vide his order dated 10.4.1987 (copy Annexure P-1). It is clear from the acquittal order that both the ladies solemnly affirmed before the Court that they were not assaulted by the petitioner nor any attempt was made by him to commit rape. The learned trial Judge observed : "It is a case of no evidence against the accused and they are acquitted of the charge framed." After acquittal the petitioner who was under suspension on account of registration of criminal case, approached the authorities for his reinstatement, but the disciplinary authority took a deterrent decision and dismissed him from service vide order dated 4.5.1987 (Annexure P-2) without holding regular departmental enquiry or giving any opportunity of being heard. The reasons therefore given in the dismissed order are as under :

(3.) The petitioner's laments is that on his honourable acquittal by the criminal Court in the case for which he was placed under suspension, he should have been reinstated or if the authorities were to proceed to take departmental action, a regular enquiry should have been made in which he would have been able to explain his position. According to him the order of dismissal is bad in law and has been passed for extraneous consideration. The respondents have come with a plea that under the provision of sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the Director Health Services, Haryana has rightly exercised his power whilst dispensing with holding of a regular enquiry against the petitioner.