Writ Petition No. 109(S/B) of 1993. Case: Amar Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 109(S/B) of 1993 |
| Judges | Devi Prasad Singh and Anil Kumar, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 364, 368; Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations - Regulation 541 |
| Citation | 2011 (2) ADJ 716, 2011 (129) FLR 84 |
| Judgement Date | January 25, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
-
The Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on 1.7.1980. After undergoing training, he was posted at Varanasi. While posted at Varanasi, he was involved in criminal offence punishable under Section 364/368 IPC. Petitioner's services were terminated by innocuous order on 11.1.1985. The order of terminated was the subject matter of dispute before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal. A plea was taken before the Tribunal by the Petitioner that he was appointed against regular vacancy and his services could not have been terminated by a simplicitor order. A further plea was taken that the foundation of the order of termination was the involvement of the Petitioner in the criminal case which resulted into acquittal. Hence, the termination order also does not survive.
-
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the Petitioner shall be deemed to be on probation and termination of service in violation of Regulation 541 of U.P. Police Regulations, could not have been done.
-
On the other hand, Respondent''s stand before the Tribunal was that apart from the criminal case, an adverse entry was given in the year 1984 and thereafter, the order of suspension was passed simplicitor and and has not caused stigma. According to learned standing counsel the order of termination is simplicitor. Further submission of the learned standing counsel is that the claim petition was barred by time. The claim petition was filed in the year 1988 hence, rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by limitation.
-
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reveals that against the punishment order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal and after dismissal of appeal, the revision was also filed which was decided by the judgment and order dated 2.7.1990. A copy of the order passed by the revisional authority is contained to the writ petition as Annexure No. 4. A perusal of the order of revisional authority shows that it was decided on merit by the revisional authority. The Tribunal has dismissed claim petition as time barred on the ground that the revision was preferred after statutory period of limitation only on 22.2.1988. Hence the claim petition shall not be maintainable. The ground on which, Tribunal dismissed the claim petition being barred by limitation, seems to be not sustainable. The limitation with regard to filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial