KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. is allowed without receiving reply since Mr. Nehra, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana appearing for the State submits that there is no necessity to file reply to the CM as was requested before this Court on 22.3.2013 by the State counsel.

(2.) The charge against him was that a physical verification of stores was carried out in the Mechanical Drainage Sub Division, Gohana by a Committee of Officers, as a result of which, materials worth Rs. 1,79,746.50 were found short against him. He was also charged of making irregular purchases worth Rs. 61,685/- without proper sanction from the competent authority. Another amount of Rs. 4128/- was found against him during reconciliation of the Bin Cards with price stores ledger. There were found other shortages as well. For these acts of omission and commission, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 8.10.1993 under Rl. 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. His explanation in reply to the charge sheet was considered and a 2nd show cause notice was issued to him on 5.5.1999. His reply to the 2nd show cause notice was not found satisfactory and vide order dated 6.10.1999, a recovery of Rs. 3,01,158.50 was ordered against him and the punishment of stoppage of three increments were imposed but without future effect.

(3.) After the trial concluded, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sonepat, found the prosecution case of pilferage and embezzlement doubtful. There was failure of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crimes charged. The charges could not be proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges leveled against him by extending him and his co-accused Dilbagh Singh, the benefit of doubt. As a result of the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial, the petitioner was kept under suspension till 15.41.2006 when the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated to service with immediate effect. However, vide impugned order dated 15.11.2006, the period of suspension was restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn. As a result of all this, the petitioner remained under continuous suspension from 15.3.1996 to 15.11.2006.