LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-82

CHANDAN SINGH Vs. UOI

Decided On September 22, 2011
CHANDAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY noted, with respect to the testimony of Ex.HC Puran Singh who had superannuated as a Head Constable from BSF, the petitioner and Nk.Raj Kumar became friendly with him and started visiting his house in spite of he i.e. Ex.HC Puran Singh cautioning them that being out of bound area, the two should not visit his house. On 30.6.1997 when he i.e. Ex.HC Puran Singh, his wife and children were sleeping, his wife heard sound from the adjoining room where-from business of selling tea was being carried out by him and as he entered the room he saw a man lying on the floor, who he struck with a stick and as the person screamed, from the voice he could recognize that it was Nk.Raj Kumar. At that very moment somebody poked a bamboo from the door and called out the name of Nk.Raj Kumar, he could recognize from the voice that the said person calling for Nk.Raj Kumar was Chandan Singh, the petitioner.

(2.) NK.Raj Kumar and the petitioner Chandan Singh were subjected to a Security Force Court Trial. Both were held guilty and visited with a penalty of dismissal from service.

(3.) AS regards the writ petitioner, he happened to land up with a lawyer, whose conduct of finding mindless writ petitions has been adversely commented upon in various orders. The mindless writ petition i.e. the instant one, being one amongst at least 40 filed in this Court in which it has been adversely commented upon against the learned counsel, who for reasons best known to him resorted to reckless cut, copy and paste, unmindful of the facts of different cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the useless pleadings in the writ petition has compelled this Court to issue Rule and set the writ petition for hearing in normal course. The counsel concerned cheated upon the petitioner by not appearing when the writ petition came up for hearing, resulting in the same being dismissed. It is only while seeking restoration that learned counsel informed the Court, a fact not pleaded in the writ petition, that Nk.Raj Kumar had already been reinstated when he filed the appeal against the sentence imposed upon him.