IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 15.01.2026 Pronounced on : 11.02.2026 Uploaded on : 11.02.2026 Mukesh Kumar ......Appellant Vs.

The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006 was also dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the civil suit, are that the appellant was working as Clerk in the Depot of Haryana Roadways at Panipat and in the year 1995, one Rajbir Singh, who was working as Helper in Haryana Roadways, was recommended to be appointed as regular Driver by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana. On 05.06.1995, he brought his service book and appointment letter as Driver on regular basis from the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, which was given on 07.06.1995. Rajbir Singh felt annoyed because of delay in getting his appointment letter and lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Panipat, against the appellant, stating therein that appellant had demanded bribe of Rs.200/-. On that basis, FIR No.196 dated 07.06.1995, under Sections 13/49/99 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him. Subsequently, the appellant was acquitted by the Court after holding trial. Appellant was served with charge-sheet dated 20.10.1995, wherein same charges were lavelled against him of allegedly accepting the bribe of Rs.200/- and it was sought to be proved by the same witnesses, who were the prosecution witness in the criminal case, in which he had been acquitted. Further during trial, appellant was placed under suspension and departmental inquiry was kept pending awaiting the decision of criminal case. But after acquittal, instead of reinstating the appellant in service, the directions were issued vide order dated 14.06.2000 by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana to Inquiry Officer Headquarter to hold the departmental inquiry. The same order dated 14.06.2000 was challenged by the appellant by filing civil suit on the ground that after his acquittal, there was no ground to proceed with the inquiry on the basis of same charge-sheet against the appellant and the same is liable to be quashed. Further that he is entitled to reinstatement after acquittal by the criminal court. Civil Suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006. He preferred appeal against the same, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide its judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006. Hence the present regular second appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that after the judgment of acquittal on merits, no departmental proceedings can be initiated. He further contends that in case departmental proceedings are to be allowed to proceed by this Court, it should be finalized in a time bound manner. He relies upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 618 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in Union of India and others Vs. Constable Jasvir Singh, 2025 NCPHHC 152379 and Smt. Harjit Grewal and others Vs. Dr. Vinod Kumar Batra and others, 2010(5) RCR (Civil) 340. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allow