Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Hira Lal @ Heera Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Others - Respondents
CWP-9582-2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-07-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically lead to reinstatement in a departmental inquiry, as the standards of proof differ.
Headnote:
Embezzlement - Departmental Inquiry - Punishment and Appeal Rules - [Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Punishment and Appeal Rules]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Water Bill Clerk, was dismissed from service and ordered to pay back embezzled funds. He sought reinstatement after being acquitted in a criminal trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be misconceived and dismissed it, emphasizing that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings did not absolve the findings of the departmental inquiry.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, acquitted in a criminal trial, was entitled to reinstatement based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate the findings of a departmental inquiry, as the standards of proof differ. The petitioner's failure to challenge the departmental proceedings in a timely manner was also noted.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not permitted to challenge the departmental proceedings at a later stage.
JUDGMENT :
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
1. Matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
2. Petitioner who was working as a Water Bill Clerk under the Public Health Engineering Sub Division, Mahendergarh office under the Public Health Engineering Department, State of Haryana was imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service as also recovery of the government loss of Rs.3,43,516/- vide order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer (Project) Haryana (Annexure P-3).
3. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the afore noticed order dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-3).
4. Counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioner were that after conduct of an audit inspection between 15.03.2012 to 22.03.2012, it came to light that the total collection as per receipts/bill book of water and sewerage charges were of an amount of Rs.29,83,345/- whereas the amount deposited by the petitioner was Rs.26,40,329/- and thereby resulting in embezzlement of Rs.3,43,516/-. The entire case projected on behalf of the petitioner is that on the basis of these allegations, FIR bearing No.161, dated 08.05.2012 was lodged in Police Station Mahendergarh and in the trial that ensued the petitioner had earned acquittal vide judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed by the JMIC, Mahendergarh. Against the judgment of acquittal, an appeal had also been preferred by the State and which has been dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (Annexure P-5). It is vehemently argued that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, he is now entitled to reinstatement as the allegations have not been proved by the prosecution.
5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) would in itself show that against the allegations of embezzlement of Rs.3,43,516/-, the department had initiated regular departmental inquiry proceedings in terms of serving charge sheet dated 10.10.2012 upon the petitioner. Thereafter Sh. C.L. Lakhanpal, IAS (retired) was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide office order dated 27.11.2012. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 04.01.2013 holding the petitioner to be guilty of remaining absent from duty and of embezzling an amount of Rs.3,43.516/-. Thereafter a show cause notice along with copy of inquiry report was also served upon the petitioner so as to enable him to submit objections/representation within a period of one month. Even though, the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the show cause notice but he chose not to submit his reply to the same.
7. In other words, the order of dismissal as also recovery of government loss of Rs.3,43,516/- is in pursuance to regular departmental proceedings initiated and concluded by the State Government.
8. It is by now well settled that pertaining to a set of allegations against a government employee, simultaneous proceedings can be initiated i.e. Departmental inquiry proceedings under the relevant Punishment and Appeal Rules as also criminal prosecution. In the facts of the present case, both proceedings have been conducted against the petitioner. Undoubtedly, petitioner has earned acquittal in the criminal proceedings. That however, will not negate/absolve the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry proceedings and on the basis of which the order of dismissal has been passed. It is well settled in law that the parameters and scope of a departmental inquiry as opposed to criminal prosecution pertaining to the same very charge would be different. In a criminal proceedings, the guilt of accused has to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. On the other hand, in departmental inquiry proceedings, the gu
