Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Jahan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation Of India Ltd Trifed And Anr - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3361 of 2021
Decided on : 10-02-2022
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 19(i) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 15 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 14 (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 311 - Post of Accountant Grade I – Reinstatement of service - Disciplinary proceedings - Arrears of salary and allowances as per rules calculated on basis of applicable pay scales - Seeking directions respondents to re-instate/re-employ Petitioner with all consequential benefits and forthwith pay the amount due & payable to the Petitioner as per rules - Whether services of petitioner should be reinstated or dispensed of in view of his conduct of demanding bribe from a vendor - Whether in view of Judgment of this Court whereby conviction of petitioner for offences under Act of 1988 has been set aside, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement - Petitioner, after his acquittal, submitted various representations and a legal notice requesting his reinstatement along with full arrears of salary and other service benefits - However, respondent did not comply with request and vide reply dated January 13, 2021 stated that petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of dismissal before competent Court.
Finding of the Case :
It reveal that basis for this Court to set aside conviction was primarily that there were contradictions in the case of the prosecution, due to which it failed to prove demand of Rs.4,00,000/- by petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and that as such, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Judgment also indicates that petitioner had indeed visited the hotel where the complainant and Dr. were staying, as is clear from the statement of petitioner himself - While there are no standards in service jurisprudence as to how integrity, honesty and trustworthiness of an employee can be measured, meaning of these terms in general parlance has to be taken into accord - No doubt, prosecution of petitioner, who was an accountant in public service, has culminated in his acquittal on account of benefit of doubt, however while seeking reinstatement, such acquittal alone cannot be claimed to be an indubitable testament to bona fide conduct of petitioner - In disciplinary proceedings, charge framed needs to be proved on preponderance of probability, unlike in a criminal case where offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - This Court is of view that petitioner is not entitled to prayers made in petition, inter alia, for setting aside order of dismissal and reinstating him in service - If such a relief is granted, it would have effect of turning a blind eye towards concern of employer regarding integrity, honesty and trustworthiness of employee.
Result: Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
a) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of certiorari/mandamus thereby set aside and quash the Petitioner's dismissal from service Order No.TFD/HO/VIG/90/03/Vol.II/1610/140 dated 19.03.2013 as well as the Memorandum No.TFD/HONIG/90/03/Vol.II/1590/1889 dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Respondents;
b) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to re-instate/re employ the Petitioner with all consequential benefits and forthwith pay the amount due & payable to the Petitioner as per rules;
c) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to grant and pay with retrospective effect all past & present service continuity benefits, arrears of salary and allowances as per rules calculated on the basis of applicable pay scales w.e.f. 17.10.2003 and as per 6& 7 Pay commission and promotion status w.e.f 1.01.2006 and 2016, respectively i.e. as Senior Accountant on basic pay Rs.58600/- p.m. (revised basic pay ofRs.66,000/- p.m.) plus DA 17%, HR.A 16% and allowances as per Rules of TRIFED, Govt. of India;
d) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to pay the aforesaid amounts and all dues along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date due till the date of payment;
e) Pass any other order or direction as deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated March 19, 2013 of the respondent, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965’, hereinafter) based upon his conviction under Section 7 and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act of 1988’, hereinafter) vide judgments dated November 22, 2012 and December 3, 2012 of the Special Court, Delhi. The petitioner had challenged the conviction orders before this Court, resulting in his acquittal and exoneration from all charges.
3. The petitioner herein was appointed as Accounts Clerk by the respondent vide letter dated October 22, 1990. He was promoted to the post of Accountant Grade-II and further promoted to the post of Accountant Grade I.
4. Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 7 and Section 15 of the Act of 1988 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’, for short), and the respondent vide letter dated October 20, 2003 suspended the petitioner w.e.f. October 17, 2003 and paid only subsistence allowance during the period from October 17, 2003 till February 2013. The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case by the Special Court, Delhi vide conviction and sentencing orders dated November 22, 2012 and December 3, 2012 respectively. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated February 26, 2013 was issued by the respondent, proposing the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, and calling upon him to submit his reply to the same. He submitted the reply/representation on March 11, 2013 informing the respondent that he had assailed the conviction order in appeal, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 106/2013 which was pending before this Court. Vide order dated January 22, 2013 this Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the petitioner while requisitioning the Trial Court record. Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondent to keep the proposed punishment in abeyance. Ms. Maheshwari also stated that though there was no separate charge memo or inquiry/departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner, the respondent suo moto proceeded against him by passing the final order dated March 19,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
