Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANJAY KAROL, AJAY MOHAN GOEL, JJ.
Union of India and others - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Urmil Mahajan and others - Respondents
LPA No. 140 of 2010
Decided On : 21-11-2017
Illegal Gratification - Disciplinary Proceedings - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, Section 13(1)(a), Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a disciplinary proceeding against an employee for demanding illegal gratification, which led to his dismissal from service. The employee was later acquitted in a criminal case related to the same incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were not fair and motivated, and the witnesses against the employee were not independent. The acquittal in the criminal case was also considered, and it was concluded that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proven.
Issues: The issues included the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, the independence of witnesses, and the validity of the prosecution sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair proceedings, independent witnesses, and the need for evidence to prove the allegations. It also considered the acquittal in the criminal case and the validity of the prosecution sanction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment that allowed the writ petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment, dated 30.06.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 966 of 2000, vide which, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondents, granted the following reliefs in their favour:
“31. In the result the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed in the following terms:
(i) The inquiry report dated 1.11.95 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-13), whereby penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner, is also quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellate order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-15) and the revisionary order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P-17) shall also stand quashed and set aside.
(iv) The respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner all the consequential benefits from the date of imposition of penalty till the date of final payment.
(v) The respondents are also directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of retirement from active service.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, namely, Shri K.K. Mahajan was serving as Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the office of Cantonment Board, Dagshai in February, 1994. At the same time, one Shri Surjit Singh was also serving in the said office as Daftri. One Gardner, namely Sh. Palak Ram, who was serving in the Cantonment Board at Dagshai died in harness. Gratuity to the tune of Rs.4,597/- stood sanctioned to be paid in respect of late Shri Palak Ram to his son Deepti Kumar. Shri K.K. Mahajan handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs.1656/- towards part payment of gratuity amount to Deepti Kumar. Allegation was that Shri K.K. Mahajan demanded illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.750/- from Deepti Kumar for the release of balance amount of gratuity. Deepti Kumar rather than obliging Shri. K.K. Mahajan, reported the matter to Anti Corruption Unit, Solan, who laid a trap and allegedly caught Sh. K.K. Mahajan red handed while accepting illegal gratification from Deepti Kumar. This was followed with the registration of a case under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sh. K.K. Mahajan and co-accused Sh. Surjeet Singh, Daftri, vide FIR No. 1 of 1994, dated 11.2.1994, at Police Station A.C. Zone, Solan. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Sh. K.K. Mahajan vide charge-sheet, dated 31st May, 1994. In the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service upon Sh. K. K. Mahajan vide resolution, dated 14.11.1995. His appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order, dated 12.08.1996. Revision petition also stood rejected vide order, dated 09.10.2000. Sh. K. K. Mahajan and co-accused were acquitted in criminal case arising out of the incident in issue by the learned Special Judge, Solan vide judgment, dated 22.10.1997. It is a matter of record that Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1998, so filed against the judgment of acquittal by the State, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 04.07.2002 and the judgment of acquittal in favour of Sh. K.K. Mahajan thus attained finality. In the backdrop of his acquittal by the learned trial Court, Shri K.K. Sharma filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., CWP No. 966 of 2000 praying for the following reliefs:
“(i) That the order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-13) i.e. the order of imposing of penalty of dismissal from service, may be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the appellate order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-15) may be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That the revisionary order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P-17) may be quashed and set aside.
(iv) That the inquiry report dated 1.11.95 (Annexure P-11) may be quashed and set aside being arrived at without following the principles o
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
