Reinstatement in FIR case Punjab Haryana High Court

Reinstatement in FIR case Punjab Haryana High Court

by

Last Updated on July 16, 2020 by Satish Mishra

This post is a case digest on Petition seeking reinstatement Punjab Haryana High Court wherein the employee was dismissed from services and his appeal dismissed before Appellate Authority. Petitioner challenged both in the writ petition seeking reinstatement to the post by issuance of the directions. The petitioner was terminated only on the basis of non disclosure of FIR pending against his name. Court held the petitioner was only required to mention that whether he was convicted or not by any criminal Court though he was convicted by trial court but acquitted in appeal. Petitioner was not convicted at that time when he was giving a statement to employer. Thus the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh allowed the petition.

Surender Singh vs State of Haryana & Ors

6 March, 2020

CWP No. 11605-2015

Date of Decision:-06.03.2020Petitioner- Surender SinghRespondents- State of Haryana and Anr The petitioner filed writ petition seeking quashing of order dismissing his services as a Conductor and reinstatement on the same post.

Also Read- Reinstatement in Job on Acquittal in Criminal Case

Facts of the case:

  1. That pursuant to advertisement, petitioner applied against the post of Conductor under S.C. Category.
  2. That the petitioner was selected and was offered appointment letter, vide letter dated 04.04.2012
  3. That the petitioner also gave attestation form with regard to character verification dated 10.04.2012
  4. That F.I.R No. 506 dated 07.09.2010 was got registered by uncle of the petitioner against the neighbour Sunita with regard to demarcation of land.
  5. That F.I.R No. 467 was registered under Sections 452/323/506/147/149IPC at P.S. Jhajjar against petitioner and other family members
  6. That Assistant Collector found that Sunita neighbourer has encroached upon the land of the petitioner, as per report
  7. That petitioner was issued letter dated 04.10.2012 by which he has been asked to show cause notice that as per clause 9 of the appointment letter, you have misstated the fact and not disclosed that F.I.R is pending against you
  8. That petitioner submitted his reply stating therein that the F.I.R was a result of family dispute. Further petitioner was not at the spot at the time of occurrence stated in the F.I.R.
  9. That petitioner was then called for personal hearing on 21.12.2012 by respondent No. 2 and issued an order dated 28.01.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service.
  10. That petitioner filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 03.09.2013 (P-9) by respondent No. 1.
  11. That the petitioner gave legal notice dated 10.11.2014 for his reinstatement but respondent No. 2 denied the reinstatement vide reply dated 18.12.2014

Also Read- Voluntary Retirement Case of Bank Challenged in High Court

Counsel on behalf of petitioner held that:

  • The only ground for dismissing the petitioner from service is that he has not mentioned the fact that one F.I.R is pending against him.
  • The impugned orders are liable to be set aside, as the department has not conducted any enquiry before dismissing the petitioner from service.
  • No allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R and the petitioner was also not present at the spot.
  • Has further produced on record the photocopy of the application form of Haryana Staff Selection Commission wherein in Para 14 a candidate has to declare that he has not been convicted by any Criminal Court.

Counsel on behalf of state admitted that:

  • The petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service, as per condition No. 9 of his appointment letter whereby the character and antecedents of the employee was to be verified after joining.
  • Reference has been made to affidavit of the petitioner whereby the petitioner had undertaken to fulfil all the terms and conditions of the appointment of offer letter, but his character was not found good, as there was criminal case registered against him, as mentioned above.

Also Read- Removal From Service Challenged in High Court after CAT Tribunal

Judgments quoted:

  1. Shri Bhagwan vs. The Director General of Police, Haryana and another, passed in CWP No. 14462-2013 05.08.2015
  2. Civil Appeal No. 1403 of 2007 titled as Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar
  3. CWP No. 4452 of 2008 titled in Amit Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.5.2008
  4. T. Chandigarh and others v. Pardeep Kumar and others, 2018 (1) SCT 394
  5. Harsh Gupta vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1995 (1) SCT 485
  6. Joginder Singh vs. U.T Chandigarh, 2015 (2) SCC 377
  7. Jagtar Singh v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 49

Also Read-
Haryana Staff Selection Commission PTI Post Challenged in Supreme Court

Findings of the court:

  • It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted by the Judgicial Magistrate Jhajjar, vide judgment dated 24.01.2017 but later on filing appeal, he was acquitted from the charges levelled against him, vide judgment dated 19.07.2018 (P-12).
  • A bare perusal of letter dated 07.06.1994 shows that the same is with regard to verification of character and antecedents of a person. The said letter does not bar a candidate against whom F.I.R is being lodged.
  • The petitioner was only required to mention that whether he was convicted or not by any criminal Court.
  • The petitioner was offered appointment letter on 04.04.2012 and he gave application form of character verification on 10.04.2012 (P-2) which was with regard to any conviction by the Court is there or not.
  • The petitioner was not convicted at that time.
  • He was convicted, vide judgment dated 24.01.2017 but was acquitted on filing appeal, vide judgment dated 19.07.2018
  • The F.I.R registered against the petitioner is a cross F.I.R as firstly his uncle has registered F.I.R against the neighbour Sunita later on Sunita lodged the cross F.I.R against the petitioner and family members.
  • The F.I.R was only with regard to dispute of encroachment of land.
  • The petitioner did not mention about the registration of F.I.R out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.
  • It was not such serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape and thus, a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
  • After facing the trial, he has been acquitted.

Also Read- Service Matter Related MACP Scheme Legal Advice

The writ petition is allowed and order dated 03.09.2013 , order dated 28.01.2013  and reply dated 18.12.2014 (P-11) is set aside. The petitioner be reinstated and is entitled to all consequential benefit.

Also Read- How to Get Extension in a Government Job

Conclusion

The petitioner petitioned seeking the reinstatement to the post of Conductor. His appeal got rejected and thereafter the present court validated the petition. After due findings, the court found no demerit in the petition and therefore granted the relief to the petitioner so asked for.

For case specific advice related to Reinstatement Service Matters in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh one can contact best/top/expert Service Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur Baltana Mullanpur etc.

This post is written by Rashika Garg. More on 99888-17966.

Call Us