LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal orders dated 20.01.2005 (Annexure P-1) and 11.10.2006 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver and was involved in FIR No. 57 dated 16.05.1996 registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 34 IPC. A cross case was also registered. Vide order dated 20.01.2005 the respondent No.3 dismissed the petitioner from service. The accused in the FIR were the petitioner and his two brothers and in the cross case another family of the same village, (also brothers) were accused. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 326 of the IPC by order 17.12002 of the trial Court and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/-. The accused in the cross case were acquitted. He filed an appeal which was rejected. In the meantime, the respondent No.3 terminated the services of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-1 on the sole basis that the petitioner has been held guilty by the trial court. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order termination which was also dismissed vide order Annexure P- The petitioner had also earlier filed writ petition against the order Annexure P-1 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal within two months. In the meantime, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Courts below was heard and finally decided by judgment and order dated 11.07.2011. This Court found that in fact both the parties were armed with deadly weapons and were fully prepared for the fight in which serious injuries were inflicted on both sides. This Court also came to the conclusion that genesis of the fight could not be established. Ultimately this Court convicted the accused in the cross case also. The revision of the petitioner against the conviction was also dismissed. However on the issue of punishment this Court interfered and set aside the sentence of imprisonment and released the petitioner on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner having been released on probation the order of dismissal has to be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service. She has relied upon the decision of judgment in the matter of Krishan Dev v. State of Haryana 2003(2) SLR 658. In Krishan Dev's case this Court held as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, learned AAG relies upon the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and others 2012 LIC 438 . In that case the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court but was ordered to be released on probation. It was after that that the notice was issued to him and after consideration of his reply he was dismissed from service. Para 12 of the judgment is as follows: