Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHAN LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-16709-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2295 (4 April 2006)

CWP 16709 of 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 16709 of 2004

Date of decision24.4.2006

Krishan Lal .. petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. US Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rahtee, Sr. DAG Hy.

M.M.Kumar, J.

The petitioner was working as a Warder in the Central Jail, Ambala. In the year 1986 three prisoners escaped from the Central Jail, Ambala and FIR No.301 under Sections 224/120 B, 511, 323, 506, 161 IPC was registered against the petitioner and 13 other officials. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was held against him alongwith others. In pursuance to the departmental enquiry the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service on 15.5.1988. However, some other officials were given the punishment of stoppage of increments. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on the ground that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner. However, the dismissal order passed by the respondents was challenged by the petitioner by filing civil suit which was dismissed on 30.7.1999. The appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 30.7.1999 was also dismissed on 28.4.2000. However, when the petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court dismissed the appeal on 5.9.2001 by observing that the petitioner may make a representation before the respondent- department highlighting that he alongwith others had been acquitted. It was further observed that since other accused were given less punishment he may also be considered for awarding lesser punishment. As a consequence, the petitioner filed a representation on 24.9.2001. The respondents on 28.12.2001 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with immediate effect and inflicted the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with future effect. With regard to the period of 15 years for which the petitioner remained out of service, the matter was sent to the Head Office/ Government for taking necessary CWP 16709 of 2004 2

action. Accordingly, respondent no.3, Superintendent Central Jail (HQ), Ambala passed an order dated 1.12.2003 holding that no benefit of previous service would be given to the petitioner for any purpose.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this petition is devoid of any substance and is thus liable to be dismissed. The petitioner according to the reply filed by the respondents was found more responsible than the others and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal has been upheld by the civil Court and the first appeal and the second appeals were also dismissed.

However, this Court while dismissing the appeal had made certain observations in view of the fact that a number of other persons involved in the case of escape of the prisoners from the Jail were granted far lesser punishment and directed the filing of representation by the petitioner. Accordingly the order of his reinstatement has been passed and five increments with cumulative effect have been stopped. The appointment of the petitioner has been considered to be fresh appointment by the impugned order dated 28.12.2001 ( Annexure P.4) read with order dated 1.12.2003 ( Annexure P.9). The mercy petition, passed on the observations of this Court, filed by the petitioner to that extent has been accepted, which according to us is more than adequate relief to the petitioner. Therefore, while upholding the order dated 28.12.2001 ( Annexure P.4) and order dated 1.12.2003 (Annexure P.9), we dismiss the writ petition.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

24 .4.2006 Judge

okg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.