Guman Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the petitioner:-

(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) within time bound period and reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

ii) Entire record pertaining to the present case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be issued/passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of law, justice, equity and fair play."

Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the primary cause for termination of services of the petitioner was a criminal case instituted against him, which has finally resulted in acquittal of the petitioner, as is clear from the perusal of judgment of the Criminal Court dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a representation with the competent authority i.e. Annexure P-4, for his reinstatement which has not been decided till today.

Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that a perusal of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court demonstrates that while acquitting the petitioner, said Court has given him the benefit of doubt, meaning thereby that there is no honourable acquittal in his favour, and otherwise also, as the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, he has no right to seek his reinstatement as he cannot equate himself with a regularly appointed person.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merit of the case, this petition, as prayed for, is disposed of with the direction that the competent authority, i.e. respondent No. 2, shall decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4), positively on or before 31st July, 2020. The petitioner shall be at liberty to supplement his representation by filing additional representation in case he so desires, positively on or before 30th June, 2020. It is clarified that in case no additional representation is received from the petitioner by respondent No. 2 before 30th June, 2020, then respondent No. 2 shall decide representation Annexure P-4 as it is. The Court expects respondent No. 2 to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation which has been so filed by the petitioner and the factum of the petitioner having been acquitted by the Criminal Court be kept in mind by respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.