URMILA MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was filed by the original Petitioner (in short 'the Petitioner') late Shri K.K. Mahajan, who is survived by his legal representatives Smt. Urmil Mahajan and others mentioned in the amended memo of parties, for grant of the following substantive reliefs as at Sr. Nos. (i) to (vi) of the prayer clause:

(2.) Brief facts of the case may be stated thus. At the relevant time, that is, on or about 11.2.1994, the Petitioner was working as Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the office of Cantonment Board, Dagshai. At the same time, one Surjeet Singh, was also working in that office as 'Daftri'. One Shri Palak Ram father of Deepti Kumar, a Gardener in the Cantonment Board, Dagshai, had died during harness. A sum of Rs. 4,597/- was sanctioned as gratuity in respect of said Shri Palak Ram to be paid to the said Deepti Kumar. On 11.2.1994, the Petitioner handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1656/- to Deepti Kumar towards part payment of the gratuity amount. It is alleged that the Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 750/- from Deepti Kumar for the release of balance amount of gratuity. However, since Deepti Kumar, who shall here-in-after be called as 'the complainant' did not want to oblige the Petitioner, the matter was reported to the Anti Corruption Unit, Solan. Consequently, a trap was laid, during which the Petitioner was allegedly caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 750/- from the complainant. After receiving the tainted money and counting the same, the Petitioner is alleged to have handed it over to the aforementioned Surjeet Singh, Daftri, who shall here-in-after be referred to as 'co-accused' saying that he would take it back from him in the evening after office hours and the latter kept the same in his pocket. On receiving the secret signal from the shadow witness, namely, Chet Ram, the raiding party headed by Dy. S.P. Jasbir Singh, arrived at the scene and a sum of Rs. 750/- in the form of currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder was recovered from the pocket of the co-accused and taken into possession by the police. Accordingly, a case under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act'), was registered against the Petitioner and his co-accused, vide F.I.R No. 1 of 1994, dated 11.2.1994, at Police Station A.C. Zone, Solan. On completion of investigation they were sent up for trial to the court of the learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P.

(3.) However, in the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 31st May, 1994, Annexure P-4, on the following article of charge: