MANPHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions Nos. 8581, 8582, 8579, 8613 and 14489 of 1989, they are being decided by this common judgment. FACTS OF THE CASE

(2.) The petitioners were enlisted as constables in the Haryana Armed Police/District Police in the month of August, 1982 and were posted in the IVth Battalion of the Haryana Armed Police at Madhuban. In July, 1979 the respondents took a policy decision by which it was resolved that in future any recruitment of Constables would not be made direct in the Districts. All the Constables would be recruited in the Armed Police and thereafter sent to the District in accordance with their seniority. Thereby the respondents were transferring Constables from the Armed Police to the Districts from time to time on the basis of their seniority. In May, 1988 there were a number of vacancies of Constables in the Districts. The petitioners and certain other persons were the seniormost persons in the Armed Police and therefore, they were entitled to be sent to the Districts. However, in the month of May, 1988, the respondents transferred 203 Constables to the District who were junior to the petitioners, but the petitioners who were senior to those 203 persons were illegally ignored. Some Constables who were also illegally ignored, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1988 on 13.5.1988 for redressal of their grievances. This Writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.11.1988 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners had no knowledge or concern with the proceedings initiated by those Constables in the High Court, but they were wrongly and incorrectly implicated and punished for the alleged offence which they never committed. The petitioners were asked by the Commandant to tell him regarding the proceedings initiated by some employees in the High Court. As they had no knowledge, they expressed their inability to give any such information whereupon the Commandant became annoyed and they were dismissed from service vide order annexure P-2 in the month of May, 1988 after dispensing with enquiry under Rule 16.24 (ix) (b) of the Punjab Police Rules and Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution. Petitioners were dismissed from service because it was alleged that they had links with the anti-social elements, who were bent upon disturbing the peace of the Haryana Armed Police Complex. However, they had adspted a militant attitude towards their seniors and were threatening them with dire consequences.

(3.) The petitioners submitted appeal (Annexure P-3), which was dismissed vide order annexure P-4, which is non-speaking. Petitioners submitted revision under Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules, which was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order Annexure P-6 and conveyed to the petitioners (Revision of Petitioner Jeet Ram is not yet decided). These orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and have been passed in blatant disregard to the Rules and of principles of natural justice and are, therefore, hit by the vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioners prayed that these orders be quashed, respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits including the seniority, arrears of pay with interest at the rate of 12 per cent.