EX Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex-Constables Nepal Singh and Hardeep Singh, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders, Annexures P-1, P-4 and P-8 and in consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid to direct the respondents to treat them as continuing in service with all consequential benefits and in alternative to grant them service pension.

(2.) Records of this case would bear it out that for the precise relief as has been asked for in the present writ, the petitioners, prior in point of time, filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 10036 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.7.2001. The order aforesaid reads thus :-

(3.) Pursuant to the directions so issued by this Court in the order aforesaid, a detailed order, Annexure P-8, dated 13.9.2001 has since been passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab. The facts that emanate from the impugned order, Annexure P-8, which have since not been disputed at all before this Court, reveal that FIR No. 106 dated 25.10.1987 under Sections 212/216 IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act and 3/4 of TDA (P) Act, Police Station Ferozepur Cantt was registered against the petitioners for having links with the terrorists, namely, Sukhdev Singh and Iqbal belonging to Babbar Khalsa Group and providing food and shelter to them. Retention of the petitioners in service was considered as undesirable and, therefore, in public interest regular departmental enquiry was dispensed with. Applying rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the petitioners were dismissed from service way back in 1987 to be precise on 29.10.1987. Their appeal was dismissed on 31.3.1988. Constrained, they filed civil suit challenging their dismissal from service, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.1991 passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Ferozepur. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.1993 by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. So much so, even Regular Second Appeal No. 700 of 1993 that came to be filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court which was confirmed by learned Appellate Authority was also dismissed on 21.9.1993. They filed even mercy petition dated 2.2.1999, which was also considered and rejected vide order dated 27.6.2001. Undisputed facts, as mentioned above, thus, reveal that not only that the very impugned order challenged in the present petition has since has been upheld by the civil Courts but even the mercy petition too was rejected. Despite this, the petitioners obtained an order from this Court on 16.7.2001 that their revision petition filed by them should have been disposed of in accordance with law. That after dismissal of all appeals and the mercy petition, there was no provision of a revision, it appears was not disclosed to the Court. When confronted with the situation, as mentioned above, Mr. Rameshwar Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that he shall limit the claim of the petitioners to post-retiral benefits alone and shall not press the petition insofar as the impugned orders dismissing the petitioners from service are concerned. That petitioners are entitled to post retiral benefits, counsel places reliance upon a judgment of Single bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Surjit Singh, 2001 1 SCT 187 facts of the case aforesaid reveal that for remaining absent from duty for a period of 4-1/2 months, the plaintiff in the said case was dismissed from service. He had rendered about 15 years of service. Having regard to the fact of his length of service it was held that he should not be deprived of pensionary and other benefits earned by him for rendering service. The facts of the case aforesaid have no parity with the one in hand. The involvement of the petitioners was with the terrorists. Being entrusted with the duty of protecting the law, they were violating it with impunity. They had indulged into anti-national activities. In considered view of this Court, they are not entitled to any post-retiral benefit. The present petition in fact is an abuse of process of the Court. It is the petitions of the kind in hand which have practically choked the judicial system and thus, deserves to be dismissed with costs. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as costs, which shall be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within a period of two months from today. The respondent- State is directed to recover the said amount in accordance with law if the petitioners may not voluntarily deposit the same.