SATBIR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.02.2003 at Annexure P-1 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the petitioner who was working on the post of Ahlmad cum Summary Clerk was imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal. Further challenge is to the order dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-4), whereby the representation filed by the petitioner to be reinstated as Ahlmad has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts that would require notice are that FIR No. 140 dated 19.09.2001 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Gohana under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon registration of the FIR ,the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.02.2001 and a fact finding preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on receipt of such preliminary inquiry report, regular departmental proceedings were initiated by issuance of a formal charge sheet raising a precise article of charge that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 4500/- from one Sanjay for disposal of challan pertaining to jeep bearing registration No. HR-46A-7142 and was caught red handed by a raiding party headed by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gohana. The then Additional & Sessions Judge, Sonepat was appointed as a regular Inquiry Officer and findings were returned holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority having agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer served a show cause notice upon the petitioner, wherein the major penalty of dismissal was contemplated. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner furnished his reply to the show cause notice and after having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority i.e. the District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat took a view that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a government servant and vide impugned order dated 12.02.2003 dismissed the petitioner from service.

(3.) It so transpires that in pursuance to the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner after the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 08/10-02.2003. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner preferred CRA No. 438-SB of 2003 which has been allowed by this Court on 20.03.2013 and the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Apparently, the petitioner relying upon the judgment of acquittal submitted a representation seeking reinstatement on the post of Ahlmad which stands rejected in the light of order dated 30.05.2013 at Annexure P-4. It is against such brief factual backdrop that the instant writ petition has been filed.