IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing – Exoneration in departmental inquiry by the Central Administrative Tribunal – The said judgment of the Tribunal having become final cannot be ignored and would be relevant for quashing the FIR – There is a marked distinction of exoneration of a person in departmental inquiry and the judgment of a competent Tribunal.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J

1. By the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.'), the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.198 dated 09.06.2011, under Sections 419 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat.

FACTS

2. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mewat at Nuh had lodged FIR in question. It was stated in the complaint that this Court had, in CWP No.2163 of 2011 titled as Maherdin and others versus Smt. Medha and others, had quashed order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the present petitioner acting as Director, Consolidation, Haryana under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'Act of 1948') and also observed that the order passed by the petitioner was clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons dehors the law and is fanciful, injudicious and irresponsible and Court also observed that the fraud was played on the Gram Panchayat as there was no resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat authorising Sarpanch or Panch to give statement on behalf of the Gram Panchayat for allowing the exchange of land on the application of Smt. Medha and others. The Gram Panchayat lost the land. The allottee Smt. Medha is niece of the officer, i.e. the present petitioner and the petitioner had not taken into consideration the interest of the residence of the villagers. The order was without jurisdiction and the Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Mewat at Nuh to initiate criminal proceedings and it is on that basis, the FIR in question was lodged. The judgment of this High Court in CWP No.2163 of 2011 has attained finality.

3. The petitioner-Subhash Chander Goyal was served with a charge-sheet under the memorandum dated 15.11.2011 and inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 22.02.2015 to conduct the domestic enquiry on the charge-sheet made against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter, namely the FIR that was lodged by respondent No.2 pursuant to the directions issued by this High Court in CWP No.2163 of 2011. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said charge-sheet and the memorandum and appointment of inquiry officer and filed Original Application No.060/00194/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal decided the said Original Application and consequently, quashed the charge-sheet under the memorandum dated 15.11.2011 as well as order dated 22.02.2015 appointing inquiry officer. The said order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal has attained finality. The present petition for quashing the FIR has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that there is already a decision of the competent Tribunal in the same subject mater.

ARGUMENTS

4. In support of the petition, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in his personal capacity was not a party to the petition, namely CWP No.2163 of 2011, decided on 21.04.2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and therefore, any of the adverse observations against the present petitioner even in relation to the direction to initiate criminal proceedings would be in breach of principles of natural justice as admittedly, the petitioner was never heard when the said judgment was made and the direction was issued in Para 27 of the said judgment. Learned Senior counsel then submitted that, though, the said judgment dated 21.04.2011 has become final between the parties to the said petition including Smt. Medha, the same would not affect the interest of the present petitioner. He then submitted that at any rate, the petitioner had the legal authority to act as Director, Consolidation, Haryana and exercising power of State Government under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 vide gazette notification dated 22.04.1983 (Annexure P-2) delegating power to the Director. The petitioner was thus, within his authori