Dalip Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—The petitioner who was working as Secretary in the Singhran Co-operative Credit & Service Society Limited, Singhran, Tehsil & District Hissar (hereinafter mentioned as the Society) under respondent No. 3 had faced an FIR No. 262 dated 5.8.1982 u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station, Sadar Hissar. But despite acquittal vide order dated 25.7.1992 (Annexure P-1), he was not reinstated in service after recalling order (Annexure P-2) whereby he was removed from the service. After his acquittal, he made a representation to respondent No. 2 but the same did not bear any fruit, rather his request for reinstatement was declined on 20.3.1997, communication of which was sent to the petitioner on 3.4.1997 (Annexure P-5). In this petition, claiming impugned order (Annexure P-2) to be non-speaking and having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has sought his reinstatement on the plea that he has been proved to be innocent on the basis of finding of acquittal recorded in the order dated 25.7.1992 by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Stand of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. It is explained that the petitioner was not removed from service on account of mere registration of an FIR against him but, in fact he was removed from the service on the basis of his indictment in a departmental inquiry wherein it was found that he had embezzled Rs. 1,69,176.19 Ps. and thereafter, he remained absent from duty for a considerable time. It is canvassed further that departmental inquiry had been conducted in accordance with rules and procedure prescribed for the same. Prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length while going through the paper book.

When rival claims of the parties are evaluated in the interface of factual matrix discernible from the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner has sought to take benefit of his acquittal recorded on 25.7.1992 (Annexure P-1) in trial which he had faced pursuant to registration of an FIR against him.

Claim of the respondents, per contra, is that in independent departmental proceedings, uninfluenced by proceedings in criminal trial, it was held that the petitioner had embezzled huge funds of the Society and in addition, he remained absent from his duty for a considerable length of time. It was asserted that when procedure prescribed under the rules had been followed in holding departmental inquiry and after having found his indictment, punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner, no cause of action is available to the petitioner for reinstatement in service simply on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case.

It is worth notice that learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to side track the fact of a regular departmental inquiry which was held against the petitioner in which he had associatively participated and thus had full opportunity to defend himself. Impugned order (Annexure P-2) does not leave any doubt that not only the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules had been followed but the petitioner had also participated therein at every stage. His association in the inquiry proceedings is evident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to successfully question either the inquiry report or the procedure followed for conducting the enquiry. I find that neither the enquiry nor the report therein is bad in law or is against the principles of natural justice.

It would also be relevant to mention that impugned order (Annexure P-2) had not been challenged by way of appeal before the departmental authorities though it is conceded that a remedy against such course of action was available to the petitioner.

Merely because the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh vide communication (Annexure P-5) had sought intervention of respondent No. 3 by giving advice that the petitioner should be taken back in service, does not put the case of the petitioner on a higher pedestal. This communication (Annexure P-5) is in the nature of advice and has no force in law. Even otherwise, advice never has a guarantee of its acceptance from the authority to which it is made as it is either as a request or as an opinion. No wonder this ''advice'' of 10.5.1996 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh though was considered but was ultimately rejected.

Support has been sought by learned counsel for the petitioner from Sulekh Chand and Salek Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others, which in fact is not available to him. Facts of the case in hand are entirely different from the facts of the cited authority. In the cited authority, no departmental inquiry had been held. Promotion of the official had been denied on the sole ground of his prosecution in a criminal case. The employee had faced trial but no departmental enquiry had been held.

Moreover, acquittal in the present case unlike being on merits in the cited authority, was on technical grounds. Standard of proof in criminal cases is also entirely different from the standard of proof required in a departmental inquiry. In criminal case, a charge has to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt whereas in departmental inquiry, preponderance of evidence holds the field for evaluation of evidence.

Moreover, in this case, the petitioner had been found to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,69,176.19 Ps.. In addition, charge of continuous absence from duty for a very long time, had also been proved against him. Sequelly, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner projected in the instant writ petition and the petition thus is dismissed.