WALAITI RAM GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I am disposing of four writ petitions bearing CWP No. 18865 of 1995, CWP No. 19042 of 1995, CWP No. 6770 of 1996 and CWP No. 6702 of 1996 as the facts involved in these cases are similar and the point of law raised in these writ petitions is also similar.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that all the petitioners in these writ petitions, who were working in the Irrigation and Power Department Punjab, were convicted and sentenced under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 420, 466, 468, 471, 477 -A and 120 -B, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, exercising the powers of Special Judge. The orders of conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 15th May, 1985. After the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners was upheld by this Court, the State Government dismissed all the petitioners under Rule 13(i) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (thereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules), vide order dated 19th May, 1989. All the petitioners challenged the orders of conviction and sentence before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed all the appeals filed by the writ petitioners and set aside the convictions and sentences passed against them and acquitted all the petitioners of all the charges vide judgment dated 13th July, 1995. It was observed by the Supreme Court that "the chain of circumstantial evidence is far from being complete and the conviction, in our view, has been based more on surmises and conjectures than on the basis of convincing and unimpeachable evidence."

(3.) IN consequence of acquittal of all the petitioners by the Supreme Court, the Government of Punjab vide order dated 14.12.1995 (copy of one such order is Annexure P/1 in CWP No. 6702 of 1996) set aside the order of dismissal passed against the petitioners. In this order, it was further stated that on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, the Government has also decided that further inquiry should be held under the provisions of the Rules against the petitioners about the allegations which led to their dismissal from service. It was also stated in this order that the petitioners shall under sub -rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date on which they were dismissed from service. That part of the aforesaid orders by which the Government has decided to hold further inquiry under the rules and the decision that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date when they were dismissed from service, is challenged in these writ petitions.