SUBHASH CHANDER AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHASH Chander Awasthy was employed as Storekeeper-cum-Clerk in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. He was a Punjab Government employee and since he contracted a second marriage, his services were terminated on 15th October, 1984. He was also relieved the same day. However, after about four years on 28th September, 1988, a case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against him at police Station city Gurdaspur, alleging that he had misappropriated medicines in the form of a large number of tablets during the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. One misappropriated item consist of 12.51000 choloroquin tablets. It was also alleged that he also possessed some chairs, tables, bed-sheets, dustbins, dusters etc. and value of all these articles was assessed at Rs. 2.40,000.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that there was no allegation of any kind against the petitioner throughout his career except that he married second time during the subsistence of the first marriage and this was the only cause of his removal from service. The registration of the present case about four years after relinquishment of the charge is a kind of device to shield other employees who wanted to shirk their own responsibility and to turn the blame on the petitioner who was relieved of his job long ago on 15th, October, 1984 in accordance with rules.

(3.) HERE attention has been invited to J.C. Goel, Sub-Divisional Officer v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Report 467, wherein prosecution for mispappropriation of building material for the period 1976 to 1990 was quashed on account of delay. Besides this, State of Andhra Pradesh V. P V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 SC 1266 : 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 350, has been referred to, where prosecution of a peacefully retired employee was considered 'a surprise'. Any authority to the contrary has not been referred to here. Nothing has been brought on record to show that delay in lodging the FIR was on account of any overt act by or on behalf of the petitioner. The conclusion is that the petition is accepted and the FIR in question registered against the petitioner at Police Station city Gurdaspur is hereby quashed. Petition accepted.