Note: This story has not been edited by LegalSeva and is generated from a news syndicate feed.
HC exonerates ADA from liability for loss of interest, overturns punishment.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that the defending public crosecutor cannot be held liable for the consequential loss of interest that may have been suffered in connection with a matter pending before the court.
NON-APPEARANCE IN COURT
The HC passed these orders while setting aside the punishment awarded to an assistant district attorney (ADA) of the Haryana govt, who was punished by authorities for not appearing before a Panchkula court in connection with a land acquisition matter. “The defending public prosecutor cannot be held liable for the consequential loss of interest that may have been suffered. The primary responsibility for ensuring proper disbursement of the compensation lies with the office of the land acquisition officer. If, as a cascading result of any acts of omission and commission committed by the office of the land acquisition/land acquisition collector, any loss to the state exchequer is caused, recovery of such losses is supposed to be effected from the erring official and not from the prosecuting/defending department,” the HC held.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Gobinder Singh, assistant district attorney (ADA) of the prosecution department, Haryana. He challenged the order of punishment dated Jan 28, 2022, imposing the stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect.
The petitioner was posted as ADA in the office of the district attorney, Panchkula, from Feb 6, 2016, to Mar 28,
2018. The main charge against him was that he failed to appear in 15 civil cases involving financial implications for the state, which were pending before the court of the additional civil judge (senior division), Panchkula, on behalf of the land acquisition collector, despite being deputed to appear in the civil court to represent the state.
Challenging the punishment awarded by the inquiry officer, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Dinesh Jangra, submitted that in view of the decision taken by the chief minister via order dated April 14, 2016, instructions to defend the cases at public expense were to be issued by the administrative department. In the present case, the administrative department had not issued any such instructions.
After hearing all the parties, the HC held that the order imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments passed by the additional chief secretary, Haryana, was not based upon an objective consideration of its own orders and tended to punish ADA for no fault.
In its detailed order, Justice Bhardwaj held that the primary burden in departmental proceedings was to be discharged by the department. In the absence of any instructions/office orders being violated, an employee cannot be held guilty of having committed any violation in the non-performance of any specific duty which he was not ordained to perform.
Observing that an inquiry officer appointed in a charge is not to act mechanically, the HC held that the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer should stem from a rational consideration of the material and not just upon the perception of a duty and presumption of breach thereof.
For case specific advice, get in touch with best Service Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court District Court Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar.
More on 99888-17966
Latest Legal News, Stories & Updates by LegalSeva 