KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Warder in the Central Jail, Ambala. In the year 1986 three prisoners escaped from the Central Jail, Ambala and FIR No.301 under Sections 224/120 B, 511, 323, 506, 161 IPC was registered against the petitioner and 13 other officials. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was held against him alongwith others. In pursuance to the departmental enquiry the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service on 15.5.1988. However, some other officials were given the punishment of stoppage of increments. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on the ground that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner. However, the dismissal order passed by the respondents was challenged by the petitioner by filing civil suit which was dismissed on 30.7.1999. The appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 30.7.1999 was also dismissed on 28.4.2000. However, when the petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court dismissed the appeal on 5.9.2001 by observing that the petitioner may make a representation before the respondent- department highlighting that he alongwith others had been acquitted.

(2.) It was further observed that since other accused were given less punishment he may also be considered for awarding lesser punishment. As a consequence, the petitioner filed a representation on 24.9.2001. The respondents on 28.12.2001 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with immediate effect and inflicted the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with future effect. With regard to the period of 15 years for which the petitioner remained out of service, the matter was sent to the Head Office/ Government for taking necessary action. Accordingly, respondent no.3, Superintendent Central Jail (HQ), Ambala passed an order dated 1.12.2003 holding that no benefit of previous service would be given to the petitioner for any purpose.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this petition is devoid of any substance and is thus liable to be dismissed. The petitioner according to the reply filed by the respondents was found more responsible than the others and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal has been upheld by the civil Court and the first appeal and the second appeals were also dismissed.