SAT PAL Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with a further relief that the petitioner should be paid all arrears of pay, benefits and other consequential reliefs arising out of his reinstatement.

(2.) While the petitioner was working in the Indian Army a criminal case was registered against him on the allegation that on or about 2nd and 3/01/1986 the petitioner committed murder of his sister-in-law. The designated court, Rohtak, Haryana conducted the trial in the aforesaid criminal case registered under section 302Indian Penal Code and numbered as Sessions Case No.109/1986. By a Judgment/order"dated 25.9.1987 the designated court convicted the petitioner under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25 of the Arms Act and section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The petitioner filed, a criminal Appeal No.420/1988 in the Supreme Court of India -as/against the aforesaid Judgment and order. In the said appeal the petitioner was released on bail. On being so released on bail when the petitioner went to report for his duties he was informed that he.was dismissed from service by the Competent Authority namely - Formation Commander, 39 Mechanised Brigade on 12/12/1987 exercising powers under regulation 423 of the Regulations which reads thus;

(3.) Subsequently, the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court came up for hearing and by judgment/order dated 8.8.1996 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction passed against the petitioner holding that in the absence of motive for the murder it is trite that suspicion however, strong cannot take the place of proof. Consequently the conviction of the petitioner'under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was held not sustainable and the petitioner was discharged from the bail bonds. On 4.10.1996 the petitioner submitted a letter enclosing therewith a certified copy of the Supreme Court to his Commandant Officer. However, since no action was taken on the basis of-the said letter for reinstatement of the petitioner and.. for payment of his consequential benefits, the petitioner by a registered A.D.letter dated 16.12.1997 sent the papers to the Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and the Commandant Officer ' for necessary action. As no action was forthcoming from the respondent the present petition was filed in this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.