Civil Writ Petition No.10502 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10502 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2011 Shiv Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Driver in Haryana Roadways during December, 1998. He claims that he was falsely implicated in the road accident case for which FIR No.186 on 21.8.2001 under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon. There was yet another FIR No.268, dated 28.10.2002, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, registered against him. As per the petitioner, his services were terminated by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways on 16.5.2003 merely on account of registration of these FIRs. A copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was also dismissed on 16.5.2003. Subsequently, however, on 4.3.2009, the petitioner was acquitted in Civil Writ Petition No.10502 of 2010 -2- case FIR No.186 of 21.8.2001. Similarly, the petitioner was also acquitted in case FIR No. 268 dated 28.10.2002 on 29.3.2010. Copies of the said judgments have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3. As per the petitioner, since his services were terminated on the ground that he had driven the bus in rash or negligent manner in both the cases, finding in this regard has been given contrary to the same by the criminal Court, which has tried the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have completed the basic training of six weeks in the Drivers Training Institute Murthal (Sonepat) and has rendered nearly 5 years service when order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner has, accordingly, impugned his termination order through the present writ petition primarily on the basis of acquittal in two criminal cases registered against him. The respondents have filed reply pleading that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is stated that termination order was not passed on the basis of pendency of FIRs or on the basis of conviction for the allegation of rash or negligent driving. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally, where he was afforded full opportunity and chance to defend himself during inquiry. The order of termination was passed on the basis of departmental inquiry after affording opportunity of personal hearing after finding given by the enquiry officer. The respondents, accordingly, would contend that registration of a criminal case or the outcome thereof has no relevance to test the validity of the termination order. Mr. Nehra has invited my attention to impugned order Civil Writ Petition No.10502 of 2010 -3- Annexure P-1, which clearly shows that the petitioner was not terminated on the basis of registration of an FIR. The petitioner, however, was proceeded against departmentally and the enquiry officer was appointed. Regular inquiry was held and on the basis of finding of enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty in driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and thereby metting with an accident with a motorcycle. The disciplinary authority had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.4.2003 on the basis of finding of the enquiry officer, proposing a punishment of termination of his services. The other reason which had been taken into account in this regard was that the petitioner was employed on contractual basis. After obtaining reply from the petitioner, it was found unsatisfactory. The order of termination was passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. During personal hearing, the petitioner had stated before the authorities that while he was on duty on Chandigarh-Delhi Road, the driver of the motorcycle had taken liquor and he had struck with the bus. This was not found satisfactory. This will belie the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that in the criminal trial, the finding was that the petitioner was not found to be a driver of the vehicle. Once this fact is conceded by the petitioner in the departmental inquiry, the finding in the criminal case would not have any relevance for testing the validity of the termination order. Even otherwise, the standard of proof in a criminal trial and the departmental proceedings is different as has been held in Nelson Moti Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1992 SC 1981. In the case of Nelson Moti(supra), the Hon'ble Civil Writ Petition No.10502 of 2010 -4- Supreme Court clearly held that the disciplinary proceedings can legally be continued even where the employee is acquitted in a criminal case as the nature and proof required in a criminal case are different from those in the departmental proceedings. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. September 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE