CWP No.3105 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 **** Om Parkash . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.07.2000 (Annexure P3) whereby he was dismissed from service on account of his conduct which led to his conviction in a criminal case registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar under Sections 7, 13(i), 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgement dated 13.03.2000. The petitioner seeks quashing of the above-stated order on the strength of the judgement dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P7) CWP No.3105 of 2010.doc - 2 – passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.300- SB of 2000, setting aside the petitioner’s conviction and sentence in the above-stated case and ordering his acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. (2). A brief exordium of the facts is that the petitioner joined the Fish Farmers Development Agency as a Junior Engineer on 13th May, 1985. While he was serving as such, FIR No.74 dated 06.08.1997 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the PC Act was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner demanded and was paid bribe of `6000/- for the release of the pond subsidy to the complainant, namely, Kulwinder Kaur. The Special Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgement dated 13.03.2000 held the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the commission of above-stated offence and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and also to pay fine of `5000/-. (3). The second respondent thereafter vide order dated July 10, 2003 (Annexure P3) dismissed the petitioner from service solely on the ground of his conviction and sentence in the above-stated criminal case. CWP No.3105 of 2010.doc - 3 – (4). The petitioner impugned his dismissal order before this Court in CWP No.7576 of 2001 on the plea that in the Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000, this Court had stayed his sentence as well as conviction and as such no dismissal order could be passed. (5). The above-stated contention did not find favour with this Court and the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2001 (Annexure P6) though after observing that “if the criminal appeal of the petitioner against the conviction is allowed, needless to mention that the respondents would re-consider the matter regarding the dismissal of the petitioner”. (6). Concededly, the petitioner’s criminal appeal has been allowed by this Court and he has been acquitted of the charges. (7). Learned State counsel fairly admits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the above-stated order dated March 3, 2009 acquitting the petitioner has been further assailed. (8). Since the petitioner was dismissed from service by invoking the powers under Rule 13(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 read with the Second Proviso to CWP No.3105 of 2010.doc - 4 – Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India on the basis of his conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the petitioner has earned acquittal in that case, there can be no other consequence but to set aside the dismissal order dated 10.07.2000 (Annexure P3) and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (11). In all fairness, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court vide judgement dated March 3, 2009 has acquitted the petitioner ‘on merits’ after disbelieving the prosecution story with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe besides noticing defect in the sanction accorded to prosecute the petitioner. In my considered view, the afore-stated issue need not be gone into by this Court at this stage. Suffice it to say that the respondents shall be at liberty to take an appropriate decision as to whether or not the disciplinary action against the petitioner is required to be taken. In the event of any adverse CWP No.3105 of 2010.doc - 5 – decision, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the same on the plea that he has been acquitted ‘on merits’ etc. (12). Dasti . 18.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE