Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.01.2011 Gulshan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who was serving as Patwari was involved in an offence under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'Act') for which FIR No. 25 was registered against him at Police Station Ambala at State Vigilance Bureau on 03.07.2002. The petitioner, thereafter, was placed under suspension. Later, he was reinstated. The petitioner was convicted for the said offence on 04.05.2005 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for conviction under Section 7 of the Act and for 2 years rigorous imprisonment for conviction under Section 13 of the Act coupled with the fine of Rs. 2500/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction on 16.05.2005. The appeal was admitted and sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended. Still the petitioner managed to continue in service till an order dismissing him was passed on account of his conviction on 05.12.2007. The Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 2 petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his dismissal, which was allowed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on 19.03.2008. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service by setting aside the order passed by the Collector dismissing the petitioner from service. Later, order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner was reviewed by holding that there was no bar to dismiss the petitioner from service if the conviction had not been stayed. The petitioner, however, has filed the present writ petition to challenge the said order on the ground that there is no power of review available with the Government to review the earlier order passed by the Commissioner. The respondents have filed the reply disclosing that the FIR was registered against the petitioner for accepting bribe of Rs. 500/- from one Ashwani Kumar. It is also disclosed that the petitioner stands convicted for offence under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for which he has been sentenced as already noticed. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction stands admitted. On the basis of conviction, the respondents had passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service on 05.12.2007 by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed appeal against the same when the Commissioner set aside the order. Later on, the Commissioner has reviewed earlier order passed by his predecessor as per the direction issued by the Government. It is stated that the Commissioner had full jurisdiction to review the earlier order and to confirm, modify or set aside the same. Reference is then made to a decision by this Court Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 3 in CWP No. 6454 of 2009 decided on 09.11.2009, where the power of the Commissioner to review the earlier order has been upheld. Copy of this order has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-4. After making reference to various precedents that were cited before the Court and upon making reference to the relevant provisions, it has finally been held by this Court that it cannot be urged that there is no power to review, revision or for enhancing the penalty under the Punishment and Appeal Rules. The relevant observation made by this Court in this regard are as under:- “ That being the position, it cannot be urged that there is no power of review, revision or for enhancing the penalty under the Punishment and Appeals Rules. In the cases cited and relied upon the counsel for the petitioner, such was not the position. Hawa Singh's case (supra) * was a case which was decided under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1952, which was repealed by Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rule 1987 (for short “1987 Rules”), it is specifically noted in Hawa Singh's case (supra) that 1952 Rules did not contain any provision for review nor did it confer any power upon the appellate authority to review or modify its own order passed in appeal. That is not the position here. There is specific power of revision or review now given under 1987 Rules. Thus, the ratio of law in Hawa Singh's case (supra) cannot apply to the * Hawa Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and others 2005 (2) PLR 679 Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 4 facts of the present case. Sarv Mittar Sharma's case (supra) ** again was concerned with the recall of an order by the same authority for which there was no provision and hence cannot apply to the facts of the present case. So would be the situation in Sub Inspector Surjit Singh's case (supra) *** where promotion order was withdrawn without there being any power to withdraw or review such order. The observation in Ram Niwas's case (supra) **** were also made entirely in different context where second representation was accepted earlier representation having been rejected. There being no provision for second representation, the order passed was interfered with. In the instant case, Rule 14 as reproduced above, gives a clear power and authority for reviewing or revising the order made by the appellate authority. Government can even upon review impose a penalty or enhance a penalty which was earlier inflicted. The submission by the counsel for the petitioners that the order has been reviewed on being dictated by the Government would lose its sting as the Government is fully competent to do so in view of the specific provision noted above. The plea that there was no appeal filed by the Department would also not be of any significance as ** Sarv Mittar Sharma, Special Secy. Punjab and Haryana High Court Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar, 1992 (2) PLR 53 *** Sub Inspector Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (4) SCT 266 **** Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2006 (3) SCT 834 Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 5 power of review or revision apparently can also be exercised suo-motu. The very wording of Rule 14, that the Government or Head of the Department may call for and examine the records of any case in which a subordinate authority passes any order, would make it amply clear that the competent authority would have suo- motu power to interfere.” Other submissions on merit were also considered and all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition were rejected. Against this, the petitioner in CWP No. 6454 of 2009 had filled Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the said petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition. The case was adjourned on 19.08.2010 to await the outcome in SLP filed in those cases. Mr. Patwalia, today, fairly points out that the SLP against the judgment passed in CWP No. 6454 of 2009 and LPA No. 327 of 2010 arising out of the same judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.08.2010. Copy of the order is handed over in the Court and the same is as under:- “ The petitioners who were convicted by the trial court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and were sentenced to imprisonment but succeeded in continuing in service up to 2006, are aggrieved by dismissal of the letters patent appeals filed by them against the orders of the learned Single Judge who refused to interfere with the orders of dismissal passed by the competent authority. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior Civil Writ Petition No. 3914 of 2010 6 counsel appearing for the petitioners for some time and perused the records. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error whatsoever by refusing to entertain the petitioners' challenge to their dismissal from service. The view taken by the High Court is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in several cases including Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera AIR 1995 SC 1364. For the reasons stated above, the special leave petitions are dismissed.” Since the issue as raised in the writ petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out. The present writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. January 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE