MAM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was directed to be heard along with CWP No. 2762 of 2003 by the Division Bench through its order dated 21.11.2003. The Registry has placed the judgment in the said case which is with reference to some investigation before the Superintending Canal Officer. It has no hearing to the case which is involved in the above writ petition and, therefore, I proceed to dispose of the case after arguments at length by the counsel. The matter in challenge in the writ petition is a decision to close down Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation whereby the services of all the employees were terminated. The counsel says that he will not press for that relief. There is also a challenge to the order issued under Annexure P-25 & P-26 dated 21.7.2003 and 22.8.2003 by the Managing Director of the Corporation imposing a punishment subsequent to a departmental proceeding denying to him the benefit of suspension period by treating the said period as non duty period. The office order issued by the Managing Director is Annexure P-25 and the determination of the amount payable to him in terms of the said order is Annexure P- 26. Both the orders are under challenge.

(2.) The departmental proceedings were preceded by a incident of criminal complaint against the petitioner for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. The alleged commission of offence was under Prevention of Corruption Act on registration of a complaint and his arrest. The petitioner had been kept under suspension on 11.10.1996. The case ultimately resulted in acquittal on 21.11.2000. After his acquittal he was not immediately reinstated in service and after a representation given by him on 19.9.2000 and through judicial intervention he was reinstated on 10.6.2002. However, a fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the same set of facts and three charges were levied against him:

(3.) Before the Enquiry Officer, the management had not placed any evidence of receipt of alleged illegal gratification. It merely placed the Criminal Court judgment and the Enquiry Officer found that since the Criminal Court had already found that the charge had not been established beyond doubt, the same reasoning would apply to answer charge no.1 and hence it must be taken that the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification had not been established. It was also held that even the third charge that there was a breach of the Code of conduct also could not be said to be established. However, he observed that even though there was an acquittal, the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case had caused disrepute to the organization and found the said charge as having been established. The report was accepted by the Management and the Management proceeded to impose a punishment of treating the entire suspension period as a period not spent on duty. The benefits, therefore, were calculated by treating the said period as non-duty period and the impugned orders came to be passed.