Pendency of an FIR cannot be a ground to deny regularization of an employee's services unless the applicable regularization policy specifically prohibits it, particularly when the trial is delayed and no charges have been framed.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

(Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied regularization in an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence.

ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2019 as has been done with the other incumbents vide order dated 01.04.2019.” .

The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was engaged as a Patwari on contract basis vide office order dated 12.10.2015. Upon completion of requisite numober of years’ service on contract basis, when persons, w ho were engaged alongwith the petitioner were regularizedr in the year 2019, he stood ignored on account of the pendency of an FIR registered against him, i.e. FIR No.50 of 2017, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra , H.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of regularization to the petitioner on the ground of registration of an FIR against him is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because said FIR is neither relatable to his performance of duties with the respondent-Department nor the same has been registered for commission of offences involving moral turpitude. Learned counsel referred to the judgments of this Court passed in CWPOA No.2611 of 2020, titled Kuldeep Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 06.12.2021, CWP No.4719 of 2022, titled Vinod Kuma.r Pal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 26.09.2023 as also in CWP No.8939 of 2023,H titled Ashwani Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another , decided on 04.04.2025 and submitted that in all these cases, this Court has consistently held that registration of an FIR cannot come in the way of an incumbent in his regularization.

On the othuer hand, learned Additional Advocate General submittedo that as there is an FIR registered against the petitioner, cCopy whereof, is appended with the petition as Annexure R-6 at Police Station Jawali, therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for regularization. He submitted that the case will be considered as and when the H matter in issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if one peruses the FIR, contents thereof would demonstrate that the FIR is primarily against a company, in which, the petitioner was just an employee, which allegedly defrauded its depositors. Learned counsel further submitted that till date charges have also not been framed in the trial and if the services of the petitioner are not regularized awaitin.g the outcome of the trial, then, irreparable loss shall be caused to the petitioner which is evident from the fact thHat the FIR was registered in the year 2017 and for almost a decade, even service of accused in the Trial is not comply.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone throughu the pleadings as well as documents appended with theo petition.

ACnnexure R-6 is the copy of the FIR which has been registered against the petitioner and has been appended by the State with the reply. The same is registered under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code already mentioned H hereinabove, primarily on the ground that one Ezeee Way Infrastructure & Land Developers Ltd., had duped its customers of the money deposited by them with the said company. The FIR a