RAVINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Bhaskar Reddy & another Vs. Superintendent of Police & another, [Civil Appeal No.10592 of 2014 decided on 28.11.2014] is a decision flagged at honourable acquittal of a criminal charge. The appellant was tried on the charge of murder and other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The substratum of the criminal charge and the departmental proceedings was more or less the same. The Supreme Court noticed and applied the past law in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 and Deputy Inspector General of Police & Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 on the import of the court coined expression 'honourable acquittal' in criminal cases. In the matter of grant of relief, the Supreme Court in S. Bhaskar Reddy's case set aside the orders of dismissal, but denied reinstatement and instead treated the appellants as having compulsorily retired from service from the date of judgment of acquittal.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed after 13 years of service. He had not by then put in the requisite period as qualifying service for pension as required by service rules to consider his case for compulsory retirement. Twenty years of service is required for entitlement for pension.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner joined service as a Driver in Haryana Roadways on 04.08.1998 and was dismissed on 09.11.2011. While in service, the petitioner had caused two devastating accidents on 26.02.2006 and 04.10.2011. In the first accident, 14 persons died of fatal injuries sustained in the collision of motor vehicles and 26 persons received injuries, whereas in the second accident, 1 person died and 1 person received injuries. Due to these acts of the petitioner, the State had to suffer financial loss, when it had to pay huge compensation in MACT claim petitions brought by the claimants of the deceased and the injured passengers. His appeal dated 211.2011 filed shortly after the dismissal on 09.11.2011 was kept pending on account of pendency of criminal trial. The petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Courts in the two criminal cases on 04.02.2014 and 19.12.2014. After these orders were passed, the Joint Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh took up the appeal for consideration; heard the petitioner and dismissed the same vide order dated 20.02.2015. It was not found proper to modify the orders of dismissal dated 09.11.2011.