Civil Misc.No.8638-C of 2009 and : 1 : R. S. A. No.2880 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** State of Punjuab & others Vs. Shiv Rattan Singh Present: Mr.NDS Mann, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the appellants. Mr.Vijay Lath and Naveen Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. ***** Civil Misc.No.8638-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of. R. S. A. No.2880 of 2009 (O&M) While issuing notice of motion in this case, execution of the decree under appeal was stayed. Being aggrieved against the findings of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court, the State has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Shiv Rattan Singh respondent had filed this suit seeking declaration to the effect that notices dated 27.10.2004, 10.1.2005 and 17.3.2005 are illegal, null and void and un-constitutional. Respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Forest Guard and was subsequently promoted as Forester. An FIR was registered against Civil Misc.No.8638-C of 2009 and : 2 : R. S. A. No.2880 of 2009 (O&M) him on 6.10.1997 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with the allegation that he had connived with cutting of the trees. The criminal Court after taking the evidence, acquitted the Respondent-plaintiff for the charges on 10.5.2003. The Respondent-plaintiff was suspended on 5.5.1994 and remained under suspension till 31.8.1997 when he retired from service. He had received subsistence allowance but had not received the salary. After retirement, he was only awarded provisional pension upto 31.12.2004 and thereafter the provisional pension was also stopped. It is stated on the basis of an enquiry held for the same allegations for which the Respondent-plaintiff was acquitted of the criminal charge. He had accordingly filed the suit seeking declaration as noted above. The Respondent-plaintiff would urge that the department knowingly and willingly ignored all his representations and requests. In view of the finding in his favour returned by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, the departmental proceedings were required to be brought to an end. In my view, there may not be much need to go into and see the effect of acquittal in a criminal case on the departmental proceedings on the ground that the finding by the court is that Respondent-plaintiff was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself before the enquiry proceedings. In this regard, it will be relevant to make note of the following observations made by the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the State:- “However, during the proceedings before the trial court, the various reports on the basis of which the respondent- Civil Misc.No.8638-C of 2009 and : 3 : R. S. A. No.2880 of 2009 (O&M) plaintiff was suspended on 5.5.2004 were withheld and even the enquiry report was also not brought on record by the appellants defendants and in the absence of the same the role of the respondent plaintiff in the cutting of trees could not be established. Even the witness of the appellants defendants Swaran Lala DW-1 admitted during cross-examination that the department did not give opportunity of being heard to the respondent-plaintiff during enquiry proceedings conducted by the department and he is entitled to full salary from 5.5.1994 to 31.8.1997 and one promotion for said period. This witness further went on to admit that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to full pension after retirement on 31.8.1997 and his services were illegally terminated and recovery was also effected illegally. This witness also admitted that order dated 10.1.2005 was issued by the department without hearing the plaintiff as per record. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff squarely covers the case in hand and on the other hand the citation cited by learned Government Pleader for the appellants-defendants is not applicable to the facts of the present case.” Thus, it came on record that even the enquiry report was withheld from the court. The role of the Respondent-plaintiff in cutting the trees could not be established. Even the defence witnesses had admitted that opportunity was not given to the Respondent-plaintiff Civil Misc.No.8638-C of 2009 and : 4 : R. S. A. No.2880 of 2009 (O&M) to defend himself during the enquiry. This finding could not be disputed before me. Thus, the view taken by the first appellate Court would not call for interference. The Regular Second Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. March 16, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE