HAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is a dismissed police officer has approached this Court praying for quashing of the enquiry report dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-1), order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala-respondent No.3 i.e. Appellate Authority and order dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings is based on no evidence and that the Punishing Authority has violated Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules') which mandate consideration of the length of service rendered by the petitioner for the grant of pension. An additional ground has been taken by the petitioner that during the pendency of the present writ petition, FIR which was initially registered for the same incidence in which the petitioner was tried has resulted in acquittal of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa on 16.9.2011 (Annexure P-11) and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the departmental proceedings have been held against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and there being no illegality or irregularity committed during the said proceedings, the order of dismissal has been rightly passed against the petitioner which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Further, it has been contended that the departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee and the criminal proceedings against an accused are two different proceedings and mere acquittal in the trial would not vest an absolute right in an employee to be reinstated when the misconduct for which he has been found guilty in the departmental proceedings and action taken against him in accordance with law even if the incident for which the trial and the departmental proceedings were commenced is the same. On this basis, it has been prayed that the writ petition deserve to be dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have addressed arguments on these lines and have made their respective submissions.