FATEH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher on December 29, 1960 on ad hoc basis. He was subsequently regularised through Subordinate Services Selection Board on September 12, 1961. He was promoted subsequently as Head Teacher. It is on November 30, 1995, he allegedly attained superannuation upon acquiring the age of 58 years.

(2.) THE petitioner was suspended on July 17, 1993 due to involvement in a criminal case. He was convicted under Section 304 Part -ll read with section 323/326 of IPC vide judgment dated October 25, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, and had been awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part -ll of IPC and for a period of six months under section 323 IPC and four years rigorous imprisonment under section 326 of IPC. The aforestated order was challenged by way of an appeal before this Court which was partly accepted and the sentence was reduced from seven years to five years vide judgment dated September 15, 1998.

(3.) NOTICE of motion had been issued vide order dated October 18, 2002. The Government has contested the claim of the petitioner and that the stand is that the petitioner had been arrested on May 23, 1993 and that the order of suspension was passed on July 17, 1998. The petitioner had been convicted and that the appeal against the judgment of the trial Court had also been dismissed except that the sentence had been reduced from seven years to five years. The petitioner has been dismissed from service with effect from May 23, 1993 i.e. the date of his arrest and it has been specifically mentioned that he will not be entitled to any retiral benefits and that the benefit of re -employment in Government service throughout India shall also be not available. So far as the earlier order is concerned, which had been quashed vide judgment dated May 15, 2002, passed by this Court in CWP No. 14348 of 1999, it has been specifically observed that his entitlement to all retiral benefits shall be subject to any further order, which the competent authority is allowed to pass as per the provisions of law, further an observation had been made that the said authority would decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The excerpt of the operative part of the judgment reads as under: