JARNAIL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the petitioner under Sections 497 and 498, read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that he joined the Punjab Armed Police on 12-10-1962 and was in employment of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on deputation since the year 1968, that he proceeded on eight days leave commencing from 5-3-1969 which was further extended by ten days on his request; that therefore he sent in his resignation from service, and that since he had heard nothing from his department he presumed that his resignation had been accepted. The petitioner is further alleged to have learnt before the filing of the present application that a case under Section 7 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947 (Act 13 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Essential Services Act, had been registered on a complaint filed by Inspector Kuldip Singh, respondent No. 2. It is also alleged by the petitioner that he apprehended his arrest as a result of warrant of arrest having been issued against him.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of respondent Union Territory of Chandigarh the contents of paras 1 and 2 of the application of the petitioner have not been denied. The respondent also admitted in para 3 of its return that eight days leave was granted to the petitioner and a telegram for the extension of leave by ten days on the ground of illness was also received. However the respondent has further pleaded that the request of extension was not supported by any medical certificate and therefore, leave could not be extended. It is further stated by this respondent that an effort to inform the petitioner about his leave not being extended was made through the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, but he was reported to be not available at his home address. However, on 28-4-1969, Sardara Singh, brother of the petitioner, undertook to inform the petitioner about the same. It is also pleaded by the respondent that even after the expiry of ten days the petitioner did not join the service and that no resignation letter was received by either respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2. The respondent in its return admitted that a case under Section 7 of the Essential Services Act has been registered, vide FIR No. 694, dated 28-8-1969, in Police Station Central, Chandigarh, but it has been denied that any warrant for the arrest of the petitioner had been issued. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have justified the action taken by them, and it has been stated that the action is in accordance with the law and is legally valid.

(3.) THE first point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Essential Services Act cannot be considered to be in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary has maintained that by virtue of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), hereinafter called the Reorganisation Act, all the laws in force immediately before the appointed day i. e; 1-11-1966 in the erstwhile State of Punjab shall continue to remain in force after the appointed day in the whole of the territory whether after the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab that fell within the present States of Punjab or Haryana or that of the Union Territory of Chandigarh or other transferred territories. Section 88 of the Reorganisation Act reads as follows-"88. The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Punjab shall until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. "