AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 212 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 31.03.2003, 17.06.2003 and 09.12.2003.
The petitioner was subjected to punishment along with Constable Jagbir Singh. They were subjected to punishment of forfeiture of three increments on account of escape of one prisoner from their custody. FIR No.172 dated 09.08.1999 under Sections 223 and 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Gohana was registered against them. They came to be acquitted by the Trial Court because prosecution did not lead any evidence. The respondent has passed impugned order on the ground that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not mean exoneration in departmental proceedings. Both are independent proceedings and standard of proof is different.
The petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of three increments. As per learned State counsel, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Even otherwise, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that with the efflux of time, he has lost his interest to pursue the present petition.
In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed.
The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives.