RAM BRIKSHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were recruited as Constables and Head Constables in U.P. Police and Provincial Armed Constabulary of Uttar Pradesh. On 21/22.5.1973, some police personnels serving in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.) took part in subversive activities which was then called as P.A.C. Revolt of 1973. The persons involved were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149, 326/149. 379, 120B, 409 and 427. I.P.C. and Section 7 (C) of U.P.P.A.C. Act, 1948. They were tried and convicted by Sessions Judge, Varanasi. A Criminal Appeal No. 2823 of 1976 and other connected criminal appeals were filed in which by judgment dated 21.12.1992, conviction of 76 appellants was set aside. Special Leave Petition No. 1908 -72 of 1994 were dismissed by Supreme Court on the ground that the occurrence took place more than two decades ago.

(2.) THE services of these police personnels were terminated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides for dismissal or removal of a person without holding any inquiry where the Governor is satisfied and finds it expedient to not hold such an inquiry. The service of some other persons were terminated in pursuance of the Government Order dated 30.2.1983 by one months' notice treating them to be temporary Government servant.

(3.) A number of persons who were acquitted in criminal appeals on 21.12.1992 against which special leave petitions were dismissed in 1994, filed writ petitions before this Court for reinstatement and back wages. A total number of 126 police personnels (including 59 permanent and 67 temporary) were reinstated in pursuance of orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 45061 of 1993, Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 26.9.1997, Hon'ble K. D. Sahi, J., found that since the petitioner had been acquitted and in view of the notification and Government Orders, the petitioner shall be treated to be in continuous service and shall be entitled to get all service benefits. He referred to similar orders in Writ Petition No. 13973 of 1992 in which while allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of termination a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner in service with full service benefit with retrospective effect. It is significant to note that the Judgment did not consider the issue whether the petitioners were entitled to back wages and no reasons were given for awarding consequential benefits including back wages with retrospective effect.