KAILASH CHANDRA II Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SABHAJEET.Yadav,.J. The.facts.of.the.case.in.brief.are.that.while.working.as.Collection.Amin.in.the.revenue.department.of.the.Government.of.Uttar.Pradesh,.a.FIR.was.registered.against.the.petitioner.alongwith.five.other.persons.under.Sections.147,148,.149.and.302.IPC,.at.Police.Station.Jani,.District.Meerut..After.trial.of.the.aforesaid.case.all.the.six.persons.including.the.petitioner.were.convicted.by.Court.of.1st.Additional.Sessions.Judge,.Meerut.vide.judgment.and.order.dated.30-6-1984..According.to.the.petitioner,.on.account.of.his.conviction.under.Sections.148,149.and.302.I..P..C..,.in.the.aforesaid.criminal.case.his.services.were.terminated.vide.order.dated.10-12-1987.passed.by.the.District.Magistrate/collector,.Meerut..Against.the.order.of.conviction.and.sentence.dated.30-6-1984,.the.petitioner.and.other.convicted.persons.have.preferred.an.appeal.before.this.Court,.which.was.numbered.as.Criminal.Appeal.No..1772.of.1984..On.4-4-1996.the.aforesaid.appeal.was.allowed.by.Division.Bench.of.this.Court,.whereby.the.order.of.conviction.and.sentence.has.been.set.aside..In.para.8.of.the.writ.petition.it.is.stated.that.the."appellate.Court.has.held.that.considering.all.these.circumstances,.it.must.be.held.that.the.doubt.having.arisen.on.the.question.of.the.acceptability.or.reliability.of.the.prosecution.story.is.of.such.nature.which.is.not.only.a.reasonable.one.but.which.also.reinforces.the.theory.that.Manohar.and.Kunita.were.not.there.at.the.time.of.murder.of.Subhash"..It.is.further.stated.that.the.petitioner.has.submitted.a.certified.copy.of.order.passed.by.this.Court.in.the.aforesaid.criminal.appeal,.to.the.Collector,.Meerut.alongwith.an.application.made.to.him.on.22-4-1996..It.is.stated.in.the.aforesaid.application.that.in.view.of.G..O..dated.12-10-1979,.a.copy.of.which.is.on.record.as.Annexure-3.to.the.writ.petition,.the.petitioner.is.entitled.to.be.reinstated.in.service.on.account.of.his.acquittal.in.the.aforesaid.criminal.case..The.petitioner.has.also.filed.the.order.of.reinstatement.of.Sri.Virendra.Giri.and.Sri.Brijendra.Giri,.who.were.co-accused.with.him.in.the.aforesaid.criminal.case.and.acquitted.in.the.same.judgment.and.order.passed.by.this.Court.in.appeal..The.orders.of.reinstatement.passed.in.respect.of.the.aforesaid.persons.by.the.officers.of.different.department.are.on.record.as.Annexure.4.and.5.of.the.writ.petition..The.respondent.did.not.pass.any.order.in.respect.of.petitioner.for.a.quite.long.time..Feeling aggrieved.against.the.inaction.of.respondent.the.petitioner.has.earlier.filed.a.writ.petition.No..30966.of.1998.which.was.decided.by.this.Court.on.23-9-1998,.and.in.compliance.of.the.aforesaid.order,.the.Collector;.Meerut.has.passed.an.order.on.18-2-1999.whereby.the.claim.of.the.petitioner.for.reinstatement.in.service.has.been.rejected..Feeling.aggrieved.against.the.aforesaid.order.dated.18-2-.1999.the.petitioner.had.preferred.an.appeal.before.the.Commissioner.Meerut.Division.Meerut,.which.was.dismissed.by.him.on.2-12-1999..Feeling.aggrieved.against.the.aforesaid.orders.passed.by.the.Collector/district.Magistrate,.Meerut.and.Commissioner,.Meerut.the.petitioner.has.filed.above.noted.writ.petition.seeking.writ.of.certiorari.for.quashing.the.order.dated.18-2-1999.and.2-12-1999.contained.in.Annexure.8.and.11.of.the.writ.petition.and.further.a.direction.in.nature.of.mandamus.is.sought.for.commanding.the.respondents.to.treat.the.petitioner.as.Collection.Amin.since.1986.up.to.30-7-1995.and.entire.benefit.of.service.may.be.given.to.him.and.thereafter.the.respondents.may.be.directed.to.pay.his.pension.admissible.to.the.post.in.question..A.further.mandamus.is.sought.for.commanding.the.respondents.to.pay.the.arrears.of.salary.and.other.consequential.benefits.since.11-8-1983.

(2.) ..On.behalf.of.the.respondents.a.detailed.counter.affidavit.has.been.filed..In.para.4.of.the.counter.affidavit.it.has.been.stated.that.the.petitioner.was.convicted.under.Section.302/149.IPC.on.30-6-1984.by.the.order.of.1st..Additional.District.and.Sessions.Judge,.Meerut.and.he.was.sentenced.for.imprisonment.of.life.and.under.Section.148.IPC.he.was.sentenced.for.a.period.to.18.months..On.the.basis.of.aforesaid.conviction.the.petitioner.was.suspended.by.order.dated.8/9-9-1986..Thereafter.on.30-10-1986.he.was.served.a.charge.sheet.and.was.asked.to.submit.his.reply.within.15.days,.by.Enquiry.Officer.appointed.for.holding.inquiry.against.him..Who.after.holding.inquiry.submitted.report.to.the.District.Magistrate.on.24-.10-1987.and.after.going.through.the.record.i..e..finding.recorded.by.Enquiry.Officer.and.reply.of.the.petitioner,.the.District.Magistrate/collector.Meerut.has.passed.a.detailed.order.on.10-12-1987.whereby.the.petitioner.was.dismissed.from.service..The.order.of.dismissal.passed.by.the.Collector.Meerut.dated.10-12-1987.is.already.on.record.as.Annexure.1.of.the.writ.petition.but.the.petitioner.did.not.challenge.the.aforesaid.order.of.dismissal.either.at.any.departmental.forum.or.any.judicial.forum.and.did.not.seek.any.relief.of.certiorari.for.quashing.the.same.either.in.earlier.writ.petition.or.in.this.writ.petition..As.such.a.preliminary.objection.has.been.raised.by.the.respondents.that.the.aforesaid.order.has.become.final.against.the.petitioner..In.para.11.of.the.counter.affidavit.the.respondents.have.taken.a.clear-cut.stand.that.the.petitioner's.service.have.been.terminated.by.way.of.dismissal.after.holding.full-fledged.disciplinary.inquiry.against.him..In.para.16.and.17.of.the.counter.affidavit.it.has.been.stated.that.the.Government.Order.dated.12-10-1979.is.not.applicable.in.the.case.of.the.petitioner..In.para.18.of.the.counter.affidavit,.it.has.been.stated.that.petitioner.cannot.claim.parity.with.regard.to.Virendra.Giri.and.Brijendra.Giri.who.were.co-accused,.but.were.employees.of.other.departments..It.is.not.known.to.the.deponent.of.that.counter.affidavit.as.to.whether.any.departmental.disciplinary.inquiry.had.been.held.against.the.aforesaid.persons.or.not.

(3.) ..In.order.to.answer.the.first.question.it.is.necessary.to.point.out.that.the.provision.of.Constitution.and.other.statutory.Rules.applicable.to.the.petitioner.who.was.Government.employee,.are.silent.on.the.point..The.G..O..dated.12-10-1979.also.does.not.cover.and.comprehend.the.whole.situation,.therefore,.the.judicial.pronouncements.on.the.question.in.issue.are.only.the.guiding.factor.and.source.of.law.to.find.out.complete.answer.to.the.question.in.controversy.involved.in.the.case..But.before.examining.the.judicial.pronouncements.on.the.issue,.it.is.necessary.to.have.a.glance.over.the.constitutional.and.statutory.provisions.having.material.bearing.on.the.issue..In.this.regard.it.is.necessary.to.refer.the.provisions.of.Article.311.of.the.Constitution.of.India. Article.311.-..(1).No.person.who.is.a.member.of.a.civil.service.of.the.Union.or.an.all-India.service.or.a.civil.service.of.a.State.or.holds.civil.post.under.the.Union.or.a.State.shall.be.dismissed.or.removed.by.an.authority.subordinate.to.that.by.which.he.was.appointed. (2).No.such.person.as.aforesaid.shall.be.dismissed.or.removed.or.reduced.in.rank.except.after.an.inquiry.in.which.he.has.been.informed.of.the.charges.against.him.and.given.a.reasonable.opportunity.of.being.heard.in.respect.of.those.charges. "[provided.that............................................... Provided.further.that.this.clause.shall.not.apply]" (a).where.a.person.is.dismissed.or.removed.or.reduced.in.rank.on.the.ground.of.conduct.which.has.led.to.his.conviction.on.a.criminal.charge" (b.)............................................... (c.)...............................................