CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 DATE OF DECISION: December 09, 2010 Ram Phal .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge his reversion order passed by the Director General of Police on 29.3.1996 and subsequent order dated 27.4.1996, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner, who was enrolled as Constable on 1.6.1963, was promoted as Head Constable on 12.9.1973. Subsequently, he was deputed to the Intermediate School Course in the year 1981 and was then brought CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -2- on list D. The petitioner was also promoted as ASI on 28.5.1982. Though he had a grievance that his claim was ignored when some juniors were promoted and confirmed as ASI, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 31.8.1985. The respondents had promoted some juniors, but the petitioner was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 9.4.1992 . He had then filed C.W.P. No.6458 of 1995 with a grievance that some persons junior to him were promoted as Inspector. In the year 1996, an F.I.R. was recorded by the D.G.P. through S.P. Kaithal against the petitioner. On the basis of some judicial enquiry, the petitioner was departmentally dealt with and held guilty even without any basis though the witnesses had supported the version of the petitioner. On 20.4.1996. the petitioner was served a show cause notice and he was reverted to the post of Sub-Inspector. He was, thereafter, dismissed from service on 27.4.1996. He has, accordingly, filed this writ petition. There may not be a requirement of making detailed reference to the reply filed by the respondents. Noticing the reply in brief, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.6.1992 by the Superintendent of Police Kaithal, pending magisterial eqnuiry against him for his alleged misconduct with members of public on 25.6.1992 while posted as SHO, Police Station Kaithal. The petitioner was then transferred to Police Lines, Kaithal. Subsequently, a regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Even an Enquiry Commission headed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra was appointed to inquire into the incident of illegal detention and torture of Sh. Chaman Lal Saraf, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -3- Ex-M.L.A. on the night of 22/23.6.1992 and his son Sh. Indresh Kumar on the night of 25/26.6.1992. After the report of the Inquiry Commission, the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner finally leading to his dismissal. The writ petition was admitted on 2.8.1996 and came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court and was allowed on 8.12.1997. Against the said judgment, Letters Patent Appeal No.270 of 1998 was filed before this Court, which was heard on 10.11.1998. The case was then remanded to the Single Judge by observing that the writ petition was decided on a single question that was agitated. Since the petitioner had raised some other submissions, he was given liberty to urge the same before the Single Judge and direction was issued to list the writ petition before the Single Judge, accordingly. When the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge, he noticed as can be seen from order dated 17.8.2001 that the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 323/342 of the Indian Penal Code for the same incident which had led to order of his dismissal. The petitioner had then filed a criminal appeal against the said judgment, which was pending before this Court. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, ordered that the case be re-listed only after the decision of the criminal appeal. The writ petition was, accordingly, adjourned sine-die. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing before another Bench after the acquittal of the petitioner of the criminal charge. The learned Single Judge then vide his order dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -4- 9.12.2002, allowed the writ petition in following terms:- “I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 29.3.1996 and 27.4.1996 cannot be sustained. They are accordingly quashed. Since the petitioner has already retired, the respondents are directed to compute the consequential benefits due to the petitioner under the service rules and pay the same to him within three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is made available to them. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.” A review application No.444 of 2003 was filed for review of the order dated 9.12.2002. In view of some observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 12.11.2003 in SLP (Criminal) No.2238 of 1995, learned Single Judge had reviewed the above said order vide which the writ petition was allowed on 9.12.2005 and restored the writ petition to its original number. A direction was issued to place the writ petition before an appropriate Bench. It may be noticed here that Chaman Lal Saraf, who was allegedly tortured by the petitioner, had filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to observe that the petitioner had been shown some extra indulgence while ordering his reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the action of the respondent/State and made some observation in its order dated 14.11.2001, which is as under:- “As per this order it seems in view of the last order by this Court the State Government has withdrawn CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -5- the two orders passed in favour of the concerned officer, namely, order of reinstatement and the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, has expressed strong resentment in the manner in which this has happened despite the earlier order passed by this Court as aforesaid. On the other hand learned counsel for the State states that there would not be any such order in future. However, we make it clear that in future if any order of reinstatement is to be passed it should be passed only after seeking approval of this Court. We are observing this only in view of special facts and circumstances of the case.” When the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, the State had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it had found difficult to comply with the order in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order reproduced above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had made observations declining the prayer of the petitioner to reinstate him with the direction that the order be brought to the notice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It would not be essential to reproduce the entire observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but operative part thereof is as under:- “It appears that Inspector Ramphal had filed writ petition bearing No.6675 of 1996 seeking reinstatement. That writ petition was pending in January and December, 2000 when orders of reinstatement were passed. Thus orders of reinstatement had been passed even though the matter was sub-judice before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The writ petition was pending even when this Court dealt with the Crl. M.P. It was not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -6- pointed out to this Court that a writ petition was pending before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Had it been pointed out this Court could have directed that orders of this Court be brought to the notice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. Writ petition No.6675 of 1996 reached for hearing before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 9th December, 2002. The Punjab & Haryana High Court by order of the same date has quashed the orders dated 29th March, 1996 and 27th April, 1996. Reading of the order dated 9th December, 2002 makes it clear that the only reason why the termination of service has been quashed is because an impression was given to the Punjab & Haryna High Court that the dismissal and reversion orders were only passed because of the conviction of the officer and that after acquittal there is no ground on which termination and reversion could be sustained. A reading of the order dated 9th December, 2002 shows that Punjab & Haryana High Court was not informed that an enquiry committee had found the officers guilty of dereliction of duty. The Punjab & Haryana High Court was not informed that a statement had been made before this Court on 16th August, 1996 and termination had taken place pursuant to the assurance given to this Court. Also the subsequent order dated 14th February, 2001 has obviously not been brought to the notice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It appears to us that the Government is colluding with the officer in trying to some how or the other get him reinstated. In our view, this is playing with the Courts. This cannot be permitted. We do not grant permission to reinstate Inspector Ramphal. This order be brought to the notice of Punjab & Haryana High Court by the State CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6675 of 1996 -7- of Haryana and by our Registry.” In view of what has been noticed above, it is clear that it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the lis raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly expressed its strong disapproval as to what all has happened in this case. The State counsel had given an undertaking that there would not be any such order of reinstatement in future. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in future if any order of reinstatement of the petitioner is passed, it should be passed only after approval from this court, meaning, Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the lis raised by the petitioner, cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court if he is left with any grievance. Otherwise also, I have not been able to find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 9, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE