SATISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the orders dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure P -2), 21.10.2013 (Annexure P -8) and 03.12.2013 (Annexure P - 9).

(2.) Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Constable with respondent No. 4 vide order dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P -1). However, petitioner was arrested on 03.12.2011 in FIR No. 270 dated 24.10.2011, registered at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, under Ss. 302/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' in short). Petitioner was not named in the FIR but was later charge - sheeted under Sec. 120B IPC on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by his co -accused Roshan Devi. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 09.12.2011 on account of his involvement in the criminal case. Petitioner and his co -accused were acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 05.01.2013. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation to the respondents that he be reinstated in service. However, the said representation moved by the petitioner was not decided by the respondents. Hence, petitioner filed CWP No. 17047 of 2013 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2013 directing the respondent No. 3 (in the present case) to dispose of the representation within two months. In compliance of the said order, respondent No. 3 has passed the order dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure P -8). Appeal filed by the petitioner was declined vide order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P -9) on the ground that after the passing of the order dated 21.10.2013 no further departmental remedy was available to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of the petitioner were terminated on account of his involvement in the criminal case. However, petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case and was liable to be reinstated. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on "Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005(1) SCT 576 wherein, it was held as under: -