RAKESH KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 1 of 2013 dated 5.5.2003 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Dharamshala. The petitioner was served with memorandums dated 24.12.2004 and 5.4.2005 vide Annexures P -1 and P -2, respectively. The petitioner filed OA(D) No. 126 of 2005 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal assailing the initiation of departmental proceedings against him pending criminal trial. The learned Tribunal granted interim stay on 19.5.2005. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 16.10.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner was removed from service on 2.3.2010. A decision was taken vide Annexures P -5 and P -6, respectively that since master -servant relationship was severed after the removal of the petitioner, departmental proceedings were ordered to be closed. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was acquitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 22.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was re -instated on 16.5.2013 and the order dated 2.3.2010 whereby the petitioner was removed from service was set aside and the disciplinary authority was directed to proceed further with two departmental inquiries pending before the Commissioner Departmental Enquiries against the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner made appeals to withdraw the departmental inquiries initiated against him. The appeals were dismissed by the competent authority vide order (Annexure R -2) dated 14.10.2013 and order dated 12.7.2014, respectively.

(2.) MR . Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the decision has been taken vide Annexures P -5 and P -6, the departmental proceedings could not be continued on the basis of Annexure P -7 dated 16.5.2013. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State has strenuously argued that the departmental proceedings were closed only on a technical ground that the master -servant relationship has come to an end, after the removal of the petitioner vide order dated 2.3.2010. According to him, the departmental proceedings could continue even though the petitioner has been acquitted as per the judgment dated 22.11.2012 and there is no specific bar not to continue with the departmental proceedings. He lastly contended that the petitioner has not been acquitted honourably, but given benefit of doubt, as per the operative portion of the judgment dated 22.11.2012.

(3.) WE have also gone through the operative portion of the judgment dated 16.10.2008. The cogent reasons have been given in Annexure P -7 dated 16.5.2013 as well as Annexure R -2 dated 14.10.2013 and Annexure P -9 dated 12.7.2014 to continue with the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 24.12.2004 and 5.4.2005.