Acquittal in Criminal Case Does Not Quash Departmental Inquiry, Petitioner’s Plea Dismissed
In a significant legal precedent concerning administrative accountability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a landmark verdict reinforcing that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically terminate ongoing departmental proceedings. The high-profile ruling came down while the court dismissed a petition filed by Pratap Singh Sabharwal, a former Deputy Director of the Haryana Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, who was challenging a long-standing departmental punishment order involving financial irregularities in pesticide procurement.
High Court Rejects Plea and Clarifies Scope of Judicial Review
Justice Nidhi Gupta, presiding over the case, firmly dismissed the petition seeking to quash the 2020 punishment order and the 2016 departmental inquiry report that had penalized the former officer by withholding one annual increment. The bench explicitly clarified that it is not the primary function of the High Court to re-evaluate or review factual findings established during a rigorous departmental inquiry. Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding his prior criminal court acquittal, the court underscored that relief secured in a criminal trial on technical grounds holds no bearing on independent administrative and departmental proceedings.
Details of the Pesticide Purchase Irregularities and Financial Loss
The legal battle stemmed from a 2012 departmental chargesheet issued to Sabharwal during his tenure posted in Bhiwani. The department had accused him of causing a direct financial loss of approximately Rs 1.40 lakh to the state exchequer by purchasing Malathion 50% EC pesticide at an inflated rate of Rs 210 per liter, whereas investigative findings revealed it was widely available in the market at just Rs 140 per liter. Although the petitioner defended the procurement by citing comparable market rates in neighboring districts and claimed previous clearance recommendations from lower bureaucratic channels, the High Court rejected these defense arguments, citing concrete proof of financial mismanagement and upholding the administrative penalty in full.
_300245590_351x234.jpg)
