SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer with the Punjab State Electricity ('Board' - for short) on 15.6.1967. FIR No. 254 dated 24.7.1984 was registered against him in Police Station Mansa under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 IPC. The allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR was that he had agreed to accept Rs. 1,500/- from one Daulat Ram as illegal gratification for not registering a case/FIR with regard to the theft of electricity against him. By judgment and order dated 3.10.1991, the petitioner was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years on each count. Criminal Appeal No. 397-SB of 1991 filed by the petitioner in this Court against conviction and sentence was admitted on 24.10.1991. The sentence imposed on the petitioner was suspended and he was enlarged on bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner had been enlarged on bail, he continued to work with the Board. He was given his promotions in due course. However, he was given only the basic pay against these posts. On 23.10.2003, the petitioner was dismissed from service by invoking Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India read with Regulation 14.1 of the Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations, 1971. Copy of the order of dismissal has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. After the order of dismissal was passed, this Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 1.7.2005. Against the order of acquittal the State of Punjab preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3262 of 2006. This was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.7.2006. It is noteworthy that in spite of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner continued to perform his duties in the Board and was also granted promotions in his due turn till he was dismissed from service on 23.10.2003. He worked on the post of JE-II till December 1988. He was promoted as JE-I in January 1989 and continued as such till October 1997. He was further promoted as Assistant Engineer (AE) in November 1997 and continued to work as such till June 2003. In July 2003, he was further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) and continued to work as such till 23.10.2003, when the impugned order of dismissal was passed against him. As noticed earlier, the petitioner was acquitted in appeal by this Court on 1.7.2005. However, before he could be reinstated in service, he reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2004. Therefore, petitioner could not be reinstated on being acquitted by the High Court from the criminal charges. He was consequently denied his salary w.e.f 23.10.2003 till 31.7.2004. He had already been denied the fixation of salary in the scales of the promoted posts, nor any increments had been granted to him, from 24.7.1984. The petitioner was also denied the grant of promotional scales after completion of 9, 16 and 23 years of service. He was also not given the proficiency step-up due to him after completion of 8 and 18 years of service. The petitioner, armed with the order of acquittal dated 1.7.2005, started making representations to the Board for retiral benefits. Copies of the representations submitted by the petitioner on 4.10.2005, 19.4.2006, 22.5.2006 and 6.7.2006 have been attached with the petition as Annexures P-4 to P-7. When no action was taken by the respondents on the representations, he also submitted a legal notice to the respondents on 12.6.2006. Again the respondents did not take any action. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order of dismissal dated 23.10.2003 (Annexure P-1); a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner to be in service and for the grant of salary and other allowances upto the date of retirement i.e. 31.7.2004. The petitioner also prays for directions to the respondents to grant all monetary benefits from 24.7.1984 to date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits after re-fixing his pay and for release of the retiral benefits including pension.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition on 7.9.2006. On 9.11.2006, Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate appeared for the respondents. The matter was adjourned till today. The respondents have not cared to file the reply. Today, however, in Court Mr. Kulwant Singh Boparai has filed a reply which is not in compliance with Rule 2(a), Chapter 1, Part-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5. Normally, the reply is expected to be filed in the Registry three days prior to the date of hearing of the case. [See Rule 29, Chapter 4, Part-F of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5]. It is also required to be typed in double spacing on one side of the paper only on water marked plain paper. The written-statement which has been produced before the Court is on the noting paper of the State of Punjab, typed in single space. The written-statement is clearly not in proper form. We may also notice that the counsel for the respondent-Board has put in appearance only after the Bench has commenced dictating the judgment. During the course of the dictation, the learned counsel made a request that he may be permitted to file the written statement in Court. We permitted him to file the written-statement even though it is not in proper form and deserves to be rejected. We shall make a reference to the contents of the same in the interest of justice. In the written-statement, the respondents have virtually admitted the entire case. In paragraph 6, it is stated that the case for withdrawal of the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service is under process and on withdrawal of the same his pay will be fixed as per regulations/instructions of the PSEB.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the petitioner had been dismissed at the time when he had not been acquitted. Now that he has been acquitted and SLP of the State against acquittal has been dismissed, the Board will withdraw the order of dismissal. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the stand taken by the respondents, it has to be accepted that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service on being acquitted by this Court. However, out of abundant caution we have examined the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397-SB of 1991. The learned single Judge has considered the entire matter in depth. The petitioner has been acquitted on merits. The conclusion reached by the High Court is as under :-