Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prakash Chand Saini vs Punjab & Haryana High Court And Another on 2 November, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1661 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision : November 02, 2012
Prakash Chand Saini .....Appellant
versus
Punjab & Haryana High Court and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.R.C.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal impugns the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's civil writ petition No.17978 of 2012. The challenge in the writ petition was laid to the order dated 28.6.2011 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service, as well as the order dated 24.7.2012 of the learned Administrative Judge dismissing the appellant's service appeal.
The facts may be noticed briefly. The appellant joined the office of District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad as a Clerk on 4.1.1996. On receipt of a complaint dated 23.4.2009, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 read with Rule 12 (2) of the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Condition of Service) Rules, 1997, inter-alia, alleging that he took a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant to get him employed as Class-IV employee in the Court by stating that the appellant allegedly had good relations with the Judges. The appellant's reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, hence a regular enquiry was conducted by an officer LPA No.1661 of 2012 (O&M) [2] in the rank of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, who vide his report dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) held as follows:-
"....24. In view of all the reasons as stated above, it is concluded that stand of the delinquent that he had given blank signed cheque to the complainant as security in August, 2007 at the time of borrowing Rs.30,000/-, is absolutely not believable. His further stand that when he returned borrowed amount to the complainant in December 2007, the complainant did not return the blank signed cheque is also not reliable. It is concluded that charge against the delinquent is proved beyond doubt that the delinquent had received Rs.1 lac from the complainant Jai Parkash on 10.12.2008 on the pretext that he would get him appointed against Class IV post and that when the complainant demanded his money back, the delinquent gave a cheque of Rs.85,000/- (copy Ex.A-3) to him and told him that Rs.15,000/- had been spent on the tea party of the Judges. This charge against the delinquent is thus duly proved...."
A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the appellant; his objections were duly considered and keeping in view the nature of allegations proved, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure P-11). The appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of Faridabad Sessions Division, who too did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same vide a self-speaking order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure P-13).
The appellant assailed both the above stated orders alongwith enquiry report before this Court on judicial side but his writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice causing no prejudice to the appellant and the punishment awarded to him is also not disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against him.
Still aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and gone through the record.
It is vehemently urged that there was no advertisement for recruitment to Class-IV posts nor the complainant had ever applied for LPA No.1661 of 2012 (O&M) [3] appointment as a Class-IV employee, hence the very basis of the allegation is non-existence. This aspect having been over-looked by the Enquiry Officer, it is contended that the enquiry report is perverse. The appellant also relies upon the cancellation report (Annexure P-6) submitted by the Investigating Agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No.222 dated 30.4.2009 registered against the appellant under Section 420, 406 IPC at P.S.Central, Faridabad. In all fairness to the appellant, the concluding part of the cancellation report may be referred to and it reads as follows:-
"......Both the parties have filed a petition bearing Criminal Misc.No.13884 of 2009 in Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on the basis of compromise and the said compromise is attached as Annexure P-6 in the above said petition. In the said compromise, both the parties have not mentioned anything apart from transaction between them. Besides this, the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh has also granted the relief prayed for in the petition. Respondent-Parkash Chand Saini has stated that as per the report received from FSL, the signatures on the cheqeue of Rs.85,000/- are stated to be that of the respondent but the writing on it is not his. From my investigation, the matter is of mutual transaction and no cognizable offence is made out. The matter of money transaction has also been got sorted by both the parties by way of compromise. Therefore, the cancellation report has been prepared in the above said case on the above said facts, which is submitted. Cancellation report be filed....."
(emphasis applied) After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us, we are of the view that the appeal is devoid of any merit. We say so for the reason that strict principles of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as applicable in criminal trials, are not attracted to domestic enquires. The findings based upon preponderance of probability are acceptable to nail a delinquent in the departmental proceedings. Applying this yardstick, no fault can be found with the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer who scanned the material produced before him and came to a firm conclusion that the appellant did take Rs.one lac from the complainant on 10.12.2008 on the pretext of getting him appointed on a Class-IV post. The question whether the LPA No.1661 of 2012 (O&M) [4] posts were advertised or not, becomes immaterial and is wholly irrelevant once it is proved that the complainant made and the appellant accepted the payment for illegal consideration. It also appears to us that no such plea was taken by the appellant before the enquiry officer. Otherwise also, it can be safely inferred that the enquiry officer was aware of the fact that the amount was received by the appellant even when there was no advertisement for the Class-IV posts. Similarly, cancellation report submitted by the police does not help the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, the cancellation report is founded upon a compromise between the parties and secondly, even as per the cancellation report, the cheque in question bore the appellant's signatures though the writing in the cheque was not in his hand.
The scope of re-appraisal or re-appreciation of evidence by an Appellate Court under the Letters Patent is very limited. Having held that there is no perversity in the findings returned by the enquiry officer, we do not find any ground, whatsoever, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Dismissed.
$
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
$
November 02, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE