JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by an unsuccessful
petitioner against the order passed by learned single Judge in his W.P. No. 816 of 1999, decided on September 26, 1999.
2. Brief facts, material for deciding the
said appeal, are mentioned hereinbelow.
Appellant was issued a charge-sheet on January
31, 1983 mentioning therein that he, alongwith
other employees of the Life Insurance
Corporation had forged Insurance Policies and
had received maturity payments thereof in the
year 1982. On account of the said charge, a
departmental enquiry against him was initiated.
In the said departmental enquiry, appellant was
not permitted to cross-examine the
Handwriting Expert with the help of ‘an
advocate. Ultimately in the department
enquiry, the charge was found to be proved.
Consequent thereupon an order of dismissal
was passed against him. Appellant, being
aggrieved by the said order of dismissal
preferred to file W.P. No. 554 of 1989. The
said petition was allowed by the Division Bench
of this Court on July 2, 1990.
3. Against this order, the respondent herein, feeling aggrieved, preferred a Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court of India was pleased to allow the S.L.P. preferred by the respondent. Consequently the order of the Division Bench passed in appellant’s Writ Petition No. 554 of 1989 dated July 2, 1990, stood quashed.
4. After the order of High Court was passed
in favour of the appellant and before the same
was set aside by the Supreme Court, it appears,
that appellant had moved an application for his
reinstatement with the respondent Corporation,
which was acceded to. However, he was again
suspended. He continued to be under order of
suspension. Then the order of the Supreme Court
came to be passed whereby the order passed by
the High Court was quashed. Thereafter a fresh
order of dismissal was issued against the appellant
on September 6, 1993 by respondent
Corporation. This order was again challenged by
the appellant in the High Court by filing W.P.
No. 1591 of 1994. That petition was also
dismissed on February 14, 1995.
5. The appellant was also charged and prosecuted for commission of a criminal offence before the J.M.F.C. Indore. The
Criminal Court found the charge proved against him. Applicant preferred a criminal appeal against this order of conviction. The criminal appellate Court was pleased to acquit the appellant, vide order dated December 2, 1996 (Annexure P-7 of writ petition). After his acquittal by the appellate criminal Court the appellant moved an application before respondent-Corporation for his reinstatement together with all consequential benefits. This prayer of the appellant was not acceded to on the grounds mentioned in the order dated February 9, 1999.
6. This order dated February 9, 1999 was challenged by the petitioner by filing yet another writ petition which was numbered as W.P. No. 816 of 1999. In this petition, show cause notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent
appeared. The matter was decided, which resulted in passing of the impugned order.
7. We have, accordingly, heard the counsel for parties and perused the record. In our considered opinion, the subsequent writ
petition filed by the petitioner, after his acquittal by a criminal Court, could not have been dismissed without going into the merits of the matter. The approach of learned single Judge, apparently appears to be wrong and
misconceived. It appears, that proper facts were not brought to the notice of learned single Judge. Thus, without, expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petition preferred by the appellant, at this stage, we
only deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to learned single Judge with a request to consider and dispose of appellant’s writ petition on merits, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion the impugned order passed by learned single Judge is hereby set aside and quashed. As mentioned above, the matter is remanded to learned single Judge. Office is, therefore, directed to do the needful. The appeal, thus, stands allowed to the extent mentioned above, but with no order as to costs.