PAPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 27.10.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that appellants could get their appeal revived filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') before the learned first Appellate Court by moving appropriate application therein. The appeal was withdrawn on the basis of an order passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana on 16.12.2004 (P.6) which order was subsequently reviewed on 28.2.2008 /10.3.2008 (P.14). According to the view taken by the Director General of Police, the then Director General of Police in his order dated 10.3.2008 (P.14) could not have reviewed the order passed in revision petition filed by the appellants as there was no power to review.

(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The appellants were recruited as Constables in the year 1988-89. All of them were probationers. On account of their participation in strike they were discharged from service vide order dated 1.10.1991 in pursuance of the powers vested in the Superintendent of Police by virtue of provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules'). In the order of discharge it was mentioned that they were unlikely to prove efficient police officers. The discharge had been ordered because they all were on probation and three years period of probation was yet to be completed by them. However, other than the appellants, there were another set of Constables. They were not probationers. They were confirmed hands. They were dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and the departmental inquiry was dispensed with in their case. It is obvious that both set of Constables are in two different categories. However, in the present proceedings, we are dealing with the Constables who were discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules. They had challenged the order of discharge dated 1.10.1991 by filing CWP No. 686 of 1992 along with many other similarly situated Constables belonging to other districts. All the writ petitions were clubbed together and were disposed of on 13.7.1995 (P.2) by the learned Single Judge. The main judgement has been rendered in the case of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 1 SCT 420. It was held by this Court that the order of discharge was punitive in nature and enquiry was required to be held. It would be appropriate to set out the operative part of the order, which reads thus:

(3.) It is thus patent that the appellants were deemed to continue under suspension and liberty was given to the respondents to hold departmental enquiry against them. It was thereafter that respondents could pass a fresh orders. The appellants were not held entitled to salary or other monetary benefits for the period from the date of their dismissal to the date of the fresh order which was to be passed. It was also left to the respondents to decide as to how their suspension period would be treated at the time of passing the fresh order. The aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge attained finality as no further appeal was filed.