LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Ram Phal …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. K.C. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 9.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition preferred by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 2. The impugned judgment has discussed the detailed facts which had led to the promotion of the appellant to the post of Inspector w.e.f. 09.04.1992. The appellant was posted as Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station City Kaithal. On account of illegal detention and torture of Sh. Chaman Lal Saraf and LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -2- Sh. Indresh Kumar on 25/26.06.1992, the State Government appointed a one man Commission of Enquiry which was headed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The Commission of Enquiry recorded a finding of fact that there was an illegal detention and torture of the aforesaid persons. In other words, Sh. O.P. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra inquired into the allegation of illegal detention and torture of Sh. Chaman Lal Saraf and his son Sh. Indresh Kumar on the night of 25/26.6.1992 by the appellant and Kaithal Police. The commission of enquiry submitted his report to the respondent-State on 31.07.1993. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a departmental enquiry was ordered to be held. Even in a departmental enquiry conducted by Shri Vishal Singh, DSP Panchkula, the appellant was found guilty. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 12.02.1996/24.02.1996, a show cause notice was issued and the appellant duly entered reply to that notice. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak, range Rohtak passed an order dated 29.03.1996 (P-10) reverting the appellant from the post of Inspector to that of Sub Inspector. Even the appeal filed against the order inflicting punishment of reduction in rank, was dismissed by the Director General of Police on 27.04.1996 (P-14). 3. The matter did not rest there, during the pendency of the departmental enquiry pending against the appellant and other co- defaulters, the victim of torture Shri Chaman Lal filed a SLP (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1995) in Hon'ble the Supreme Court which LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -3- came up for hearing on 09.02.1996. The Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court took serious objection for failure to launch any prosecution against the appellant and others who had been indicted by the commission of enquiry. The Bench also expressed its dissatisfaction that the appellant was reinstated and posted in the criminal branch. The punishment of reduction in rank given to the appellant was reviewed by the Director General of Police-respondent No.3 in exercise of power under Rule 16(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). Accordingly, the punishment of reduction in rank was converted to that of dismissal of service vide order dated 27.4.1996 after giving proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. 4. The learned Single Judge has recorded in some details the sequence of event of hearing of the writ petition filed by the appellant, namely CWP No. 6675 of 1996 relatable to the instant appeal. At one stage, the writ petition was allowed and the order of reduction in rank and dismissal were set aside on 08.12.1997. Against that order, an intra court appeal being LPA No. 270 of 1998 was preferred, which was allowed vide order dated 10.11.1998. The order dated 08.12.1997 was set aside and direction was issued to decide the writ petition afresh. The learned Single Judge was asked to decide various other grounds which might be raised before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge once again set aside the order of reversion and dismissal vide order dated 09.12.2002. Later on, this aforesaid was recalled on 09.12.2005, while deciding LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -4- review application No. 444 of 2003. The basic reason for recall was that the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the order dated 03.11.2003 in SLP (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2238 of 1995) (wrongly recorded as 12.11.2003 by the learned Single Judge). The writ petition was again restored to its original number and the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the impugned judgment has now been rendered. The learned Single Judge has quoted the order dated 14.02.2001 (wrongly recorded by learned Single Judge as 14.11.2011) passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court recording its dissatisfaction in the following terms which reads as under: “As per this order it seems in view of the last order by this Court the State Government has withdrawn 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 LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -5- in view of special facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The learned Single Judge further found that the observations have been made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its order dated 12.11.2003 opining that the appellant had concealed from this Court, the factum of departmental enquiry. He merely put forward the issue of his conviction by the trial Court and his subsequent acquittal by the High Court in criminal proceedings. The observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court have been quoted which reads thus: “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 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 LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -6- 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. LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -7- 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 of Haryana and by our Registry.” 6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge concluded that once Hon'ble the Supreme Court has made observations in the aforesaid language then it was not proper for this Court to adjudicate the issue raised by the appellant in the writ petition relatable to the present appeal. It has also been noticed that Hon'ble the Supreme Court expressed its strong disapproval as to what happened in the present case. Learned State counsel had also given an undertaking that there would not be any reinstatement in future. A direction was given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that if an order of reinstatement of the appellant is ever passed then it could be passed only after approval from Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his able assistance. We have also gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to agree with the conclusion reached therein. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant is the result of undertaking given by the State counsel before Hon'ble the Supreme Court when it was found that the respondent-State was hand in glove with the appellant. Therefore, this Court cannot tinker with either the undertaking given by State counsel nor it could LPA No. 992 of 2011(O&M) -8- observe anything with regard to order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The appeal does not deserve admission and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 12, 2011 Atul