MAHARANI DEEN SAROJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Shyam Narain and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.10.99, passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). It appears that in respect of a misconduct, three constables including the petitioner were proceeded in a criminal case in which the all three constables including petitioner were acquitted. The services of the petitioner and other constable was terminated during the pendency of criminal case whereas as third one was placed under suspension. After an enquiry, the suspended constable was reinstated. Petitioner appears to have filed a claim petition against the order of termination, which was rejected by Public Service Tribunal. Petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court against the order of tribunal. In the meantime, the claim of other constables, namely, Rai Singh was allowed on merit, pursuant to which he was reinstated with full back wages. At this stage, when the matter was considered by this Court "in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court vide its order dated 8.11.1995 has directed the respondents to re-consider the case by interfering in the order of termination, as has been done in the case of similarly situated constables. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the matter was reconsidered and it appears that by the order dated 4.4.1996 petitioner was taken back in service, but back wages were not paid to him on account of the aforesaid discrimination petitioner again came before this Court by filing a writ petition No. 12447 of 1997, which was disposed by the judgment of this Court dated 19.7.1999. This Court directed that respondents will re-consider the matter having regard to the factum of reinstatement of other two constables. After direction of this Court by the judgment dated 19.7.1999, the impugned order was passed by which it has been held that the petitioner is guilty for the misconduct, therefore, there is no justification for making payment of back wages. This order of respondent No. 2 which made the petitioner aggrieved.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents can be not permitted to act in a discriminatory manner, as for the same incident/charge two other constables who were proceeded, having been taken back in services with full back wages, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same treatment. It is further argued, that although the chapter about the petitioner's misconduct was already over and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of reinstatement of the petitioner then there was absolutely no occasion for respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order to hold the enquiry about the misconduct and deny him the back wages. Learned Counsel submits that respondent No. 2 can not be permitted to re-open the entire things, as only consideration which was pending before him, was that where the petitioner was also entitled to get his full back wages which two other similarly situated constables received. Lastly it has been submitted that respondent No. 2 has not assigned any reason whatsoever in his order for the aforesaid conclusion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this submission, that if in an incident, several workmen are involved and they all having been proceeded for in the same charge and if some of them have been reinstated with full back wages then one employee can not be singled out for the punishment. Reference can be made to the decision reported in 2001 ILR 80, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Prasad Singh and Anr.