Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Sen, C. J. and R. K. Agrawal, J.
STATE OF U. P. - Appellant
Versus
GAJADHAR PANDEY - Respondents
Special Appeal 386 Of 2001
Decided On : 10/15/2002
R.N.TRIPATHI, SABHAJEET YADAV
Headnote:
Termination of Services - P. A. C. Constables - 1973 - [Gajadhar Pandey, Hari Narain Tripathi, Girja Shanker Mishra, Ram Bishal Maurya, Tej Narain Singh] - [P. A. C. revolt, reinstatement, termination, laches, Article 311 of the Constitution, probation period, permanent status] - The court discussed the termination of services of P. A. C. constables in 1973, their reinstatement, the issue of laches, and the violation of Article 311 of the Constitution due to termination without holding an inquiry. The court found that the termination orders were punitive and violative of Article 311, and the constables were not guilty of laches. The court also discussed the probation period and the acquisition of permanent status by the constables.
Fact of the Case:
The P. A. C. constables' services were terminated in 1973, and they approached the court in 1997. The constables were involved in the P. A. C. revolt, and the government had reinstated other constables involved in the revolt in 1996-97.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the constables were not guilty of laches and that the termination orders were punitive and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The court also found that the constables had not acquired permanent status despite completing the probation period.
Issues: The issues included the termination of services, the applicability of laches, the violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, and the acquisition of permanent status by the constables.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the constables were not guilty of laches, the termination orders were punitive and violative of Article 311, and the constables had not acquired permanent status despite completing the probation period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the special appeals, affirming the judgments and orders passed by the learned single judge.
( 1 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 110 of 2000, has been filed by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 5. 11. 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38530 of 1999. Following the judgment and order given in the connected Writ Petition No. 13710 of 1999, Mahendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U. P. and Ors. , the writ petition was allowed and the termination order dated 5. 6. 1973 was quashed2. Special Appeal No. 112 of 2000 has been filed by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 5. 11. 1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38534 of 1999, wherein the learned single Judge had followed the decision of this Court in the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1993, decided on 26. 9. 1997 Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , and allowed the writ petition by quashing the termination order dated 20. 11. 1975.
( 2 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 113 of 2000, has been filed by the State respondents against the judgment and order dated 5. 11. 1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38533 of 1999, preferred by Girja Shanker Mishra, wherein the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition by following his order of date passed in connected Writ Petition No. 13710 of 1999, Mahendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U. P. and Ors. , and had allowed the writ petition by quashing the termination order dated 26. 7,1973.
( 3 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 229 of 2000, has been filed by the, State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 8. 9. 1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44581 of 1999 preferred by Ram Bishal Maurya by following the decision of this Court dated 26. 9. 1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1993, Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. . The writ petition has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated on his original post of constable in P. A. C.
( 4 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 386 of 2001, has been filed by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 8. 9. 1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44592 of 1998, preferred by Tej Narain Singh wherein the learned single Judge had finally disposed of the writ petition with a direction that, in case the petitioner has not been convicted on any criminal charge and no departmental proceeding is pending against him, he shall be reinstated to his original post of constable to P. A. C.
( 5 ) SINCE all these special appeals raise a common question of law, they have been taken together and are being decided by a common Judgment,
( 6 ) THE respondent-writ petitioner in Special Appeal No. 110 of 2000, Gajadhar Pandey, was appointed as a constable in P. A. C. against substantive vacancy on 16. 10. 1970. After successful completion of probation period and training he was posted as a permanent constable in 26th battalion, Gorakhpur. In May, 1973 a revolt in P. A. C. took place. The State Government lodged a F. I. R. against the person involved in the revolt. However, those persons were acquitted by the sessions Court, which order was affirmed by this Court in appeal. Even though, Gajadhar pandey was not named in the F. l. R. his service was terminated on 5. 6. 1973 by giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof on the ground that his services is no longer required by treating him to be a temporary constable. It appears that the State Government took a decision to reinstate all such P. A. C. constables whose services have been terminated on account of P. A. C. revolt and who have been acquitted in the criminal charges. This decisions was taken in the year 1996-97. Gajadhar Pandey approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13967 of 1997, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11. 9. 1997 with a direction that he may make a representation raising all his grievances before the appropriate authority, w
