BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioner -appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 5.12.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order dated 4.3.2009 removing him from service on the allegation that he had accepted illegal gratification (P -5) and subsequent orders dated 4.6.2009 (P -7) and 9.7.2010 (P -8) rejecting his statutory appeal and revision. Brief facts of the case are that a case FIR No. 50, dated 21.8.2006 has been registered against the petitioner -appellant, who was working as an Exempted Head Constable in the Haryana Police, with the allegations that he demanded '5,000/ - as gratification to hush up a vehicle theft case registered against one Manjit Singh, the nephew of the complainant Ram Bilas. In the criminal trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner -appellant of the charges leveled against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act finding them to be unreliable. A departmental inquiry was also initiated against him wherein the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges, vide inquiry report dated 19.11.2007. Thereafter, the punishing authority -Superintendent of Police, Hisar, after concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; giving show cause notice dated 12.2.2009 and compliance of the principles of natural justice, passed an order dated 4.3.2009, dismissing the petitioner -appellant from service (P -5). The statutory appeal and revision filed by the petitioner -appellant were rejected vide orders dated 4.6.2009 (P -7) and 9.7.2010 (P -8). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -appellant filed the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal primarily on the ground that once he has been acquitted of the charges leveled in the criminal case, which are identical and similar to the charges in the departmental proceedings, then no occasion arises to held him guilty and the dismissal order has been wrongly passed and liable to be set aside. The petitioner -appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of GM. Tank versus State of Gujarat and others : 2006 (5) SCC 446. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the contentions raised by observing as under: -

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that once no procedural lapse has been pointed out, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and the charges have been established then there cannot be any room for this Court to interfere in the order of dismissal, dated 4.3.2009 (P -5). The Courts are not a Court of Appeal over and above the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate/Revisional Authority. As a concept of law the Courts cannot re -appreciate evidence to reach a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer merely because another view is possible. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde : 2006 (7) SCC 212.