OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had joined as a Clerk in the service of the erstwhile State of Pepsu, was removed from service by an order dated 24.7.1965 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab under Rule 4(vi) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. This order was preceded by a regular departmental enquiry which included the issue of a chargesheet, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply and recording of evidence etc. Simultaneously, the Government of Punjab sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner Under Section 409 I.P.C. The petitioner was convicted Under Section 409 I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul who sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court. However, on an appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner was acquitted by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 25.1.1979. Immediately after his acquittal by the Supreme Court, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities of the Punjab Government as well as the Haryana Government for his reinstatement and for grant of consequential benefits. It appears that the two Governments exchanged correspondence on the question of entitlement of the petitioner to be reinstatement in service but ultimately, it was decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court because the order of punishment of removal from service was not set aside by the Supreme Court. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.1990 (annexure P-15).

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on the ground that the sole basis for taking action against him was the charge of embezzlement of Rs. 535/- and once the petitioner has been exonerated by the Supreme Court, the very foundation of the order of punishment of removal from service has dis-appeared and the employer is under a duty to reinstate him in service and to give him all consequential benefits. Argument of Mr. Nabhewala, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy inasmuch as the Government proceeded against him by way of a departmental enquiry and at the same time, prosecuted him, Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the basis of the order of punishment stands obliterated in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is, as a matter of right, entitled to reinstatement and all consequential benefits. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(3) S.L.R. 434.

(3.) Learned A.A.G. Punjab argued that the order of punishment was passed against the petitioner same 30 years ago on the basis of a regular departmental enquiry and unless that order was successfully challenged before an appropriate forum including this Court, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement merely because his conviction and sentence have been set aside by the Supreme Court.