← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25017/2017disposed of

Satish Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2026-03-11Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa3 pages

       



 !"# $%&%!'()*)+  



      

   (  ,- ).  . -

 





  ! 



"  #  " 

$$$$$

 .-/)

1 % 

 is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-16) vide which the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service has been rejected by respondent No.3. 2.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for reinstatement in service on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No.425 dated 23.12.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station City, Sonipat, vide judgment dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-14). The case of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the charges framed in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are identical and as the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him -1-

in criminal proceedings, as such, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

3.

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-16) would show that the contentions raised in the application/representation dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-15) submitted by the petitioner of his reinstatement in service has not been taken into consideration by the respondents while passing the said order. 4.

Learned State counsel submits that once the petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure P-8) and the same has already been upheld by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-12) passed in CWP No.386 of 2012 titled as Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others and the LPA filed against the said order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-12) has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service.

5.

%    !         &'    ! 

6.

A perusal of the order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-16) would show that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the application/representation dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-15) for his reinstatement in service have not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-16). 7.

%  '   !

  

 !  '  -2-

 !  ( )      '  !     !    '         application/representation dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-15) for reinstatement in service after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, within a period of 04 months    !! ! 

 8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

)*)+

 .-    *  +  , ( *  '

 , ( -3-