—• —TTB* IN THE_ HIGH JBOSET G_F >njHTGM?DBE A!F KtLaSPUR ( C,_G_._) WSIT PETITIQN HO. ^'Y^ /200 6. it.^1!^? ;;"u^u BETITIONERA^' ^^'"" ^'^ ^0>" <?<* .A-" ^- BESPONBEHTS •VBBSUS 1. 4. Pahalvan Slngh Thakur Bx-Pollee Cbnstable Nb. ffi3 ^/o vlllage Tar&ud asaltara aisttaJaajglff-ehaapa C.s^ State of Chhattisgarla Thngugh s Ctilef Seeretary Hame teparbaent (Poliee) D.K.S. a»avan Baipar (C»G»). laspeetor General of Pollce Solice Head Qaarter, sal^xir (CSG.). Saperintendent o£ PGlice Bilaspar (Q.S.) Qallector Blla^ur Qlstt. Bllaspar (C.G.) WmT_PETITIOR BNBER -Aaa'IttiE 226/227 OF THE CtSNSTITUSIflN OF EfiDEIA ®RISStJ'SNCE QF AppaapKt.Aa's WRIT» ORISR. < TB mgBGTlQN. Tlie petltloner naned ahe>ve, raost tunia.y aad respeGtfiilly begs to sabnlt as under : XI-HC-22 ^ST^fraRi^, ;. is'i.li'Hy IIHC-flTgrqra)_..I2Ii2/^ ra> / TF^ sn^T'^ii R-fi* aiE^t S^*T ^f^^i i-2. '%^n. :-£UUI sn^i FRiRre^ifttT Shri Surya Kant Ivlishra, counse! fd Shri Sandeep Dubey. Govt. Heard. The petitioner has fiied this petitioh frassed by respondent no, 3. The petitk $tete of Madhya Pradesh. An accusedl tustody. Departmental Enquiry was heti| ijound guilty and as per Annexure P-1 lermlnated. Learned counsel for the ^referred an appeal against the said t^i 13-7-1983. Leaned counsel further ^refsrred a mercy petitlon, which was a| ^ounsel aiso submits that the petiiionet ^•hich wasalso dismissed on 25-11-191 hat again a mercy petition was filed iismissedon 1-8-1991. Learned counsei for the State ok t)etjtionerhas fitedthls petition after21 y( This Court perused the detaill tsetitionei' stated Shat he'preferred an arig 1was rejected on 23/7/1983. Thereafterl Was rejected on 6/12/1983. Again h^ (•ejected on 25/11/1 S85, Again he Tiled chi^-ifi'I ^HH^I'^ is*^l <r<T[^R ^? aifigii sn^i Irthepetitioner. Advotjs-te for the State. against an order dated 27-5-1983 [ner was in service of the erstwhile esraped on 7-2-1883 from poltee i^ and in enquiry' the petitioner was fated 27-5-1983, his sewices were p^titioner submits thait the petitioner t^rmination, which was decided on su^mits that Shereafter the petitioner |so rejected on 6-12-1983. Learned again preferred a mercy petiiion, i5. Lsarned counssl also subinits |by the petltioner, whlch was aiso submits D; + i the other hand 'submits fhat the iars, whlch is highly beiated. id order dated 27/5/1983. The peal against his termination, vvhich he fited the mercy patition, which fiied a mercy petifion, which was a mercy petition, v/hich was also ['^ SRa<i XI-HC-22 ^'•qpfRN,'3^NT!3>'!^IRITP: ' '2? iwwi ch»(|ch""'"-'"''"""""'"""'"""""W^ 200 "fa^I"""'" sn^i^iii h-u* sv^y *t|i<t> 'Hfta P,H- a' T ^y ^' ^jected. He.did notflie any ofthe proce^dings. The present petition isfiled (fter21 y-ears; Thedetay iswritiarge. Havina considered the facts anB circumstances of the caseam tiateriai on record, not a case for setti 311^1 ^giwBftg .^ qi|^T<n-4ll HHcff ^ fe^-t.^T^K ^sipgiigii^i ated 27/5/1983 while exereising the extraordinary jurisdictjon under Article 26/227 ofthe Constitution ofindia.. The Defition faiis and Is ulsmissN. It is however made clear that fetnce the peSitioner remalned In sen/ic^ from the year 1967 to 27/5/1983 y: j-ynOTuAW^ . . ..I . . .. .... d/any amount/?f"claim i's due iiaMiaa^pffiari^the petitioner may make a ^ epresentatlon to fhe authorities conGerrjed, which shali be dealt with on ite ibwn merits in accordance with iaw. feayable to him, the same be paiu to him. Ing aside the order of punishment n case any amount is due to be Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [Tft^ ^Fa^