Delhi High Court - Orders
Balwan Singh vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board And ... on 5 October, 2021
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10112/2021
BALWAN SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Adv.
versus
DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD (Services) with Mrs.Tania
Ahlawat, Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh and
Ms.Palak Rohemetra, Advs. for
DAMB
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 05.10.2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated February 26, 1999. Vide the impugned order the respondents have dismissed the petitioner from service on the allegation that he is involved in the embezzlement of Rs.6,36,341/- and also by holding that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry against him.
2. It is the conceded case of the petitioner and so urged by Mr.Rangi that an FIR was registered against the petitioner with above allegations. The FIR has resulted in an order of acquittal by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated July 17, 2019. The only submission made by Mr. Rangi is that in view of the conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitting the petitioner, the respondents are required to decide the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:05.10.2021 18:58:32 representation of the petitioner made on September 02, 2019.
3. I am not in agreement with the said submission of Mr. Rangi for the reason that the impugned order was passed almost 12 years back. The petitioner was within his right to challenge the said order. In this regard, the submission of Mr. Rangi is, that till such time there is a decision in the criminal proceedings, there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the order of the dismissal. I am also not in agreement with this submission of Mr. Rangi for the reason that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was also on the ground that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry against the petitioner, which conclusion has not been challenged. The petitioner could have asked for conduct of disciplinary proceeding before the order of dismissal could have been passed. There is no bar, for initiating departmental enquiry against a public servant on the same cause of action which is the subject matter of Criminal Trial.
4. Having not done that, Mr. Rangi cannot take the benefit of the decision of the criminal Court in support of his challenge to the order dated February 26, 1999 which was passed 12 years back. In the absence of any challenge to the order that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry, I do not see any reason to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J OCTOBER 05, 2021/aky Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:05.10.2021 18:58:32