IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12634 of 2008. Decided on: 18.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Sh. Yoginder Paul. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). CMP(T) No. 162 of 2011: Reply not to be filed. Heard. In view of no contest, the application is allowed. Consequently, copy of judgment dated 10.12.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in police challan No. 56-II/2003, titled State versus Yoginder Paul, is ordered to be brought on record. Application stands disposed of. CWP (T) No. 12634 of 2008: The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i), (ii) and (iii):- (i) To quash and set aside the orders passed by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla at Annexure PA dated 1.12.2004 and also those passed by the Appellate Authority- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respondent No.3 at Annexure PO dated 7.5.2004 and the punishing Authority-respondent No.4 at Annexure PL dated 2.6.2003. (ii) To direct the respondents to restore the applicant to original position ante 2.6.2003 when the Punishing Authority forfeited his five years’ service for the purpose of future increments. (iii) To issue directions to the respondents to restore (applicant) his annual increments and pay him the arrears of pay on account of annual increments with attendant service benefits.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (c) and (d):- “6 (c). In reply to this para it is submitted that it came to notice of respondent No.4 that the applicant while posted as Assistant Reader to Addl. S.P. Mandi was fraudulently compounding challans under M.V. Act and also issuing receipts thereof under his own signatures to the offenders and misappropriating the Govt. money. On enquiry into the matter the applicant admitted his fault before the respondent No.4 and also admitted that he had issued the cash receipts. Thus the applicant had committed fraud and misappropriated Govt. money, committed impersonation and misused his official position. Since the applicant had committed criminal offence, therefore, a criminal case was registered against him vide FIR No. 221/02 dated 3.5.02 u/s 420/419/467/468 and 471 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Mandi. Simultaneously a departmental inquiry was also ordered against him vide order dated 3.5.2002, as there is no legal bar to hold the departmental inquiry. However, the inquiry was ordered to be held in 3 abeyance vide order dated 8.5.2002 and the matter was taken up with the District Magistrate Mandi for approval to hold a departmental inquiry under the provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 (2). (d). In reply to this para it is submitted that the matter was duly examined by the District Magistrate and ordered that a detailed departmental inquiry be conducted by the Addl. S.P. Mandi. Accordingly, the inquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Addl. S.P. Mandi vide order dated 12.7.2002.” 3. The record reveals that for the allegation levelled against the petitioner simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings were initiated. Whereas, the former culminated into passing of the impugned order dated 7.6.2003, Annexure PL, whereby the petitioner was visited with penalty of permanent forfeiture of five years’ service for the purpose of future increments, the latter ended in his acquittal vide judgment dated 10.12.2008, Annexure P1, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today, the same shall be considered by the said respondents/competent authority and a final decision taken thereon in accordance with law within further three months by taking into consideration the fact that the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner on the same allegations had ended in his acquittal and also taking into consideration the proportionality 4 between the misconduct and the penalty imposed, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 18, 2011. (cr)