SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was serving as Patwari in the office of District Town Planner, Jind was placed under suspension w.e.f. 8.8.2002 on account of involvement in a criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegations that has been levelled by the complainant Bansi Lal were that he contacted the petitioner for obtaining N.O.C regarding sale of his agricultural land measuring 5 kanals 13 marlas and for which a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000.00 had been raised. On the same very allegation departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 26.8.2003 issued under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The then District Town Planner, Kaithal was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 2.9.2004. The departmental proceedings culminated in the furnishing of an inquiry report dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure P-1), wherein findings were returned that there was no evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of any amount by way of bribe and as such the petitioner was exonerated. However, in the criminal prosecution petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Jind and sentenced to undergo R.I of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00. Based on the judgement of conviction petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 29.8.2005.

(2.) The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgement of conviction was accepted by this Court vide judgement dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) and he was acquitted of the charges. As a consequence of the acquittal, an order dated 13.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana reinstating the petitioner in service but with immediate effect i.e. w.e.f. 13.2.2011 itself. A representation filed by the petitioner seeking all consequential benefits pertaining to the suspension period as also the period he remained out of service stands rejected vide memo dated 22.9.2011 (Annexure P-6).

(3.) It is against such brief factual backdrop that the instant petition was instituted in the year 2014 seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary for the period that he remained under suspension as also for the period of dismissal and up till his date of reinstatement.