Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 596 (JK)

Ajit Singh Yadev v. Union of India and others

2011-11-01

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge 1. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 09.03.2002 and came to be discharged from service by the Commanding Officer on 03.10.2004 on the ground that his verification of character and antecedents was found unsatisfactory. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved of order of discharge has assailed the same on the grounds taken in the writ petition. On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit, perusal whereof reveals that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 436, 324, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC and for this reason he came to be discharged from service. During the tendency of the writ petition, CMP no. 4158/2010 was filed by the petitioner praying therein that he be permitted to place on record copy of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-IInd, Ballia. Application was allowed and judgment was taken on record vide order dated 27.12.2010. Additional Sessions Judge after concluding the trial come to the conclusion that the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner and has recorded a finding that accused deserves to be held not guilty on the basis of doubts and, accordingly, he acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Nar Singh Pal V. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1401 . Learned counsel referred to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is reproduced as under: 12. The fact that the appellant was involved in a criminal case is not disputed by the appellant. What is contended by him is that he was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and, therefore, involvement of the appellant in a criminal case could not have been made the basis for terminating his services. Since the appellant was acquitted, and it was a clear acquittal, the stigma attached to him of having been prosecuted in a criminal case should have been treated to have disappeared and no argument can be allowed to be raised for justifying the order of dismissal on the ground of appellant's involvement in a criminal case. 4. Since the appellant was acquitted, and it was a clear acquittal, the stigma attached to him of having been prosecuted in a criminal case should have been treated to have disappeared and no argument can be allowed to be raised for justifying the order of dismissal on the ground of appellant's involvement in a criminal case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents made efforts to defend the discharge order, however, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, he failed to defend the same. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no provision for reinstatement of the petitioner under rules. The petitioner was selected and appointed after having been found fit on the basis of merit and suitability by the respondents. His discharge order was passed because of the report of Police, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case. 5. Reason for which the petitioner was discharged from service, was that there were allegations against him, which were required to be proved at trial. The Court of competent jurisdiction after concluding the trial has acquitted the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him. 6. In para no. 12 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), it is specifically held that the appellant was acquitted and it was a clear acquittal, the stigma attached to him of having been prosecuted in a criminal case should have been treated to have disappeared and no argument can be allowed to be raised for justifying the order of dismissal on the ground of appellant's involvement in a criminal case. Said judgment covers the facts of the present case. 7. The contention of learned counsel for respondents that there is no provision for reinstatement of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the ground that court of competent jurisdiction once quashes the order of dismissal, consequence thereof is that said order has ceased to be in operation. There is no further requirement of passing any administrative order and in the event order of discharge is quashed, petitioner would be deemed to be in service and will be entitled to all service benefits. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is allowed and order impugned dated 03.10.2004 is quashed. There is no further requirement of passing any administrative order and in the event order of discharge is quashed, petitioner would be deemed to be in service and will be entitled to all service benefits. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is allowed and order impugned dated 03.10.2004 is quashed. The period for which the petitioner was out of service will be dealt by the competent authority in accordance with the rules and decision to be taken within twelve weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 9. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s).