PITAMBER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dtd. 31/3/2003, 17/6/2003 and 9/12/2003.

(2.) The petitioner was subjected to punishment along with Constable Jagbir Singh. They were subjected to punishment of forfeiture of three increments on account of escape of one prisoner from their custody. FIR No.172 dtd. 9/8/1999 under Ss. 223 and 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Gohana was registered against them. They came to be acquitted by the Trial Court because prosecution did not lead any evidence. The respondent has passed impugned order on the ground that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not mean exoneration in departmental proceedings. Both are independent proceedings and standard of proof is different.

(3.) The petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of three increments. As per learned State counsel, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Even otherwise, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that with the efflux of time, he has lost his interest to pursue the present petition.