SWAMI SHARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the respondent-State on following three counts :-

(2.) After examining oral as well as documentary evidence, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification on 27.7.2001 for passing a student Shri Suresh Kumar of Turner trade and Mukesh Kumar in practical subject. It was further found that he was remanded to judicial custody on 10.8.2001 in District Jail, Sonepat and FIR No. 104 dated 27.7.2001 under Sections 7, 13 and 49 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered against him at Police Station Gohana. The enquiry officer also found in respect of charge no. 2 that the petitioner violated the instructions of the Directorate and appointed Shri Ranbir Singh Mor on examination duty and he himself assumed the duty of Examiner for four trades whereas he was deputed as Chief Examination Superintendent. Therefore, it was found that he has misused his official position by passing a student in practical examination. It has been concluded that the petitioner has been found guilty of violating Rule 3 of Employees Conduct Rules, 1987 . Therefore, the second charge has also been proved against the petitioner. The third charge is also proved as the petitioner has caused damage to the reputation of the department and the teachers amongst the students and public.

(3.) When the enquiry report came up for consideration before the Financial. Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana (Industrial Training and Vocational Department) Haryana, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.10.2002 to which the petitioner had sent a reply on 10.12.2003. However, the departmental enquiry was stayed till the decision of the criminal case. On 13.8.2005, the proceedings in the criminal case concluded and the petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge, Sonepat on 13.8.2005 (Annexure P.17). On 22.8.2005, the petitioner made a representation to respondent no. 1 to reinstate him in service. However, respondent no. 1 passed an order on 3.4.2006 for retiring the petitioner compulsorily.