SHIV JAGAT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri Vipin Bihari, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by Shiv Jagat Pandey (petitioner), who was appointed as temporary constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (for short 'pac') and posted at 14th Batalion, 37th Vahini, PAC, Kanpur. Under an order dated 14th November, 1973, the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 311 (2) decided to dismiss the said constable from service. The reasons disclosed from the record is that the petitioner was involved in PAC revolt of 1973, which had resulted in Crime Case No. 506 of 1973 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 326, 380, 457, 397, 121/121-A of the Indian Penal Code being registered at Police Station Chhavani, Kanpur Nagar. The sessions trial resulted in a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 23rd December, 1981, whereby large number of PAC constables were convicted of the offence of which they were charged. Against the said judgment of the Sessions Court, large number of Criminal Appeals were filed including Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 filed by the present petitioner, Shiv Jagat Pandey. The appeal was heard by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and two different orders were passed for the purposes of allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner (Shiv Jagat Pandey ). Judgments delivered by two Hon'ble Judges separately on 21st December, 1992 qua Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 read as follows : "criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 (wrongly typed as 478 of 1982 ). Shiv Jagat Pandey v. State (156) Shiv Jagat Pandey of 'e' company had been identified by Sheo Kumar Tripathi P. W. 14 and Mohd. Naqui P. W. 25. The statement of these witnesses cannot be taken into consideration for convicting an accused. The appeal of Shiv Jagat Pandey is allowed. His conviction and sentences awarded to him are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are discharged. " "criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982. Shiv Jagat Pandey 'e' Company : This appeal is allowed. He was not an injured accused. He was not on duty nor he has been named by two witnesses. Therefore, his participation in the incident is doubtful. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. "

(3.) IT was clarified that in respect of (b) category constables, whose services were terminated because of their participation in 1973 P. A. C. Revolt on the ground that their services were no longer required being temporary employees would not be entitled to the benefits of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13th March, 1997 and dated 26th September, 1997 passed in various writ petitions. IT was clarified that the representations made by such employees be rejected and in case any difficulty is faced by the concerned officer, he may seek legal opinion.