RAMKUMAR CHANDANSINDH Vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard Mr.B.I.Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.I.M.Pandya, learned AGP on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) In the present petition, wherein RULE has been issued by this Court and the earlier ad-interim relief has been directed to be continued till final disposal of this petition by order dated 18th December, 1990.

(3.) The brief facts of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was appointed on the post of Armed Police Constable on 25th November, 1978 . On 27th June, 1984, the chargesheet was served to the petitioner wherein, allegations were made that the petitioner was found in drunken condition on 5th July, 1983 and at the same time, one another armed police constable Hiraji Nathaji was also found in drunken condition together with the petitioner and a common chargesheet was also issued to the co-delinquent namely Hiraji Nathaji. On 9th December, 1985, a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had replied to the show cause notice on 3rd March, 1986. Thereafter, on 4th June, 1986, the competent authority has passed the order of punishment removing the petitioner from service. Against that appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 2nd August, 1986. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal order before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 2800 of 1987, wherein this Court [ Coram : R. C. Mankad, J. ] by order dated 9th September, 1987 passed order wherein, a statement was made by the learned advocate of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner desirous to approach the Director General of Police by way of revision application and on that basis, the petition was withdrawn by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner but however, a request was made before the Court that to direct the Director General of Police to dispose of the revision application of the petitioner within four weeks. Accordingly, this Court had directed the Director General of Police to dispose of the revision application as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of revision application and ad-interim relief granted earlier was continued for eight weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Director General of Police. Thereafter, on 8th October, 1987, the revision application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that another constable Hiraji Nathaji who was also found in the drunken condition along with the petitioner was discharged from the charges and was reinstated in service only on the ground that the percentage of alcohol was less in comparison to the percentage found in case of the petitioner and punishment which was imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate. However, the authority has rejected the revision application on 7th December, 1990. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has expired and his heirs were brought on record. The petitioner has expired on 28th September, 1999. In light of above set of facts and circumstances, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has raised the following submissions.