BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a conductor in Haryana Roadways. He was placed under suspension on 28th April, 1998 following registration of a criminal case against him. The Department reinstated him to service on 29th October, 1999. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat convicted the petitioner and others vide judgment dated 26th August, 2000 for committing various criminal offences of a heinous nature including S. 148 read with S. 149, 203 read with S. 149 and 307 as well as for murder. On conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25th October, 2000 and his subsistence allowance was limited to the amounts already drawn.

(2.) Accordingly, the petitioner staked his claim for back wages and other consequential financial benefits from the period of dismissal till the date of judgment in appeal i.e. 22nd July, 2009 by making a representation to the department. The department has rejected the representation by the impugned order dated 6th April, 2011 (P-7) challenging which the present petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner submits that this order is illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Still further, he submits that it has been passed contrary to the provisions of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules in their application to the State of Haryana. Rule 7.5 reads as follows:-

(3.) The structure of the rule is built around acquittal from blame on a criminal charge or if it is proved that the official's liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or the detention being held by the competent authority to be unjustified. It would be well to remember that the petitioner was acquitted of murder and other serious charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. In criminal law such an acquittal even though based on benefit of doubt is taken as proof of innocence and there may be no great difference between honorable acquittal and acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt. However, in service law the meaning can be different, with different hues and diverse fallouts on the relief sought from the administrator and then from the Court. This vital difference has been explained recently in the context of false declarations made to procure appointment to public service in the police department and fitness for appointment or retention in service on discovery of false declarations in attestation forms by the Supreme Court in relation to service law in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, 2013 7 SCC 685.