CHAMAN LAL SARAF (DEAD)BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
Supreme Court of India
CRL. M.P. NO. 10148 OF 2013 Judgment Date: Dec 03, 2014
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRL. M.P. NO. 10148 OF 2013
In
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2238 OF 1995)
Chaman Lal Saraf (Dead)
By LRs. & Ors. ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
And
Ramphal ....Applicant
J U D G M E N T
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.
1. The present Crl. M.P. No. 10148 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of
1995 has been filed by the applicant on 03.04.2013 seeking
clarification of the order dated 03.11.2003 passed by this Court in
Crl. M.P. No. 8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995, vide
which the said Misc. Petition was dismissed with costs and this Court
did not grant permission to reinstate the applicant Ramphal.
2. The present application has been filed in pursuance of the order dated
14.3.2013 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29555
of 2011, which is as under:-
"In the face of the directions issued by this Court in order,
dated 3rd November, 2003, passed in Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995, which also takes
notice of the order passed by this Court on 14th February,
2001, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767 & 5768 of 2000 in Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.2238 of 1995, we are of the opinion that the
learned single judge as
well as the Division bench were understandably constrained not to
decide Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 1996 on merits. However, we
can also visualize the plight of the petitioner as it
prima facie appears that when the orders were passed by this Court
on 14th February, 2001 and 3rd November, 2003, the petitioner was
neither a party nor was he heard.
In view of the aforesaid observations, Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned
counsel for the petitioner, makes a prayer for adjournment to enable
his client to move an appropriate application. Let such application,
if any, be filed within two weeks."
3. The relevant facts, necessary to decide the present application, are
as under:-
4. Mr. Ramphal, applicant was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on
1.6.1963 and subsequently he got promotions. On 9.4.1992, he was
promoted to the rank of Inspector due to his outstanding work and
performances.
5. On 25/26.6.1992, when the applicant was posted as Inspector, Station
House Officer of Police Station, City Kaithal, it has been alleged
that the applicant alongwith other police officials illegally detained
and gave beating to one Chaman Lal Saraf, Ex-M.L.A., and his son
Indresh Kumar, (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in S.L.P.(C) No. 2238 of
1995). An Enquiry Commission headed by Shri O.P. Gupta, District &
Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra was appointed by the State Government to
make an enquiry into the said matter. The said Commission of Enquiry
enquired into the allegation of illegal detention and torture of Mr.
Chaman Lal Saraf and his son Mr. Indresh Kumar on the night of
25/26.6.1992 by the applicant and Kaithal Police. The Commission of
Enquiry submitted its report on 31.7.1993 and recorded a finding that
there was an illegal detention and torture of Mr. Chaman Lal Saraf and
his son.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Commission of Enquiry, a
departmental enquiry was ordered to be held against the applicant
which was conducted by Shri Vishal Singh, D.S.P. Panchkula. In the
departmental enquiry also, the applicant was found guilty.
7. In the year 1994, not feeling satisfied with the report of the
Commission of Enquiry, Shri Chaman Lal Saraf and his son filed a Writ
Petition being C.W.P. No. 9899 of 1994 in the High Court praying for
issuance of directions to the respondents to hold an independent
enquiry through C.B.I. into the alleged incident which took place on
25/26.6.1992. The High Court, vide order dated 13.2.1995, dismissed
the said writ petition. Being not satisfied with the dismissal of the
aforesaid writ petition, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed S.L.P. (Crl.)
No.2238 of 1995 in this Court.
8. On 24.2.1996, the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range,
Rohtak issued a show cause notice to Mr. Ramphal, applicant, as he was
found guilty in the Departmental Enquiry, which was conducted in
pursuance to the report dated 31.7.1993 submitted by the Commission of
Enquiry. A reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the
applicant on 6.3.1996. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Rohtak
Range, Rohtak vide order dated 29.3.1996, reverted the applicant from
the rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector. The Director General
of Police, Haryana, suo-moto summoned the record and vide its order
dated 27.4.1996, dismissed the applicant from the services.
9. On 5.5.1996, the applicant filed C.W.P. No. 6675 of 1996 in the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, challenging the aforesaid orders dated
29.3.1996 and 27.4.1996 passed by the Dy. Inspector General, Rohtak
Range, Rohtak and Director General of Police, Haryana, respectively,
whereby the applicant was reverted from the post of Inspector to Sub-
Inspector and thereafter dismissed from the services.
10. On 16.8.1996, this Court disposed of the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of
1995 by passing the following order:-
"Since appropriate steps have been taken by the Government of Haryana
in this matter and the required action has also been taken against the
officers found guilty of dereliction of their duties........ in view
of these facts it is not necessary to pursue this matter any further
keeping in view the attitude of the Government of Haryana to take
necessary action itself. This Special Leave Petition is disposed of
accordingly."
11. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the C.W.P. No. 6675 of
1996 vide its order dated 8.12.1997 and set aside the order of
dismissal passed against the applicant. Against the aforesaid order
of the High Court, the State of Haryana filed Letters Patent Appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench did
not grant any stay of the order dated 8.12.1997.
12. The applicant filed contempt petition as the respondents did not
comply with the order dated 8.12.1997 passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No. 6675 of 1996. Thereafter, in
compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant was taken back in the
services.
13. On 10.11.1998, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the
Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the order dated 8.12.1997 and
remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ
petition afresh. On 15.1.1999, the applicant was again dismissed from
the service.
14. On 11.12.2000, during the pendency of the aforesaid C.W.P. No.6675 of
1996, the State of Haryana, in pursuance to the representation
submitted by the applicant, withdrew the orders dated 29.3.1996 and
27.4.1996 which were the subject matter of the said writ petition. On
26.12.2000, the applicant was taken back in service and was further
promoted to the rank of D.S.P. The applicant as a result of his
reinstatement was also paid arrears of salary and consequential
benefits for the period for which he remained out of service.
15. In the year 2000, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767 &
5768 of 2000 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995. This
Court, vide order dated 14.2.2001 disposed of the Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767
and 5768 of 2000 and issued the following directions:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
As per this order it seems in view of the last order by
this Court the State Government has withdrawn the two orders passed in
favour of the concerned officer, namely, order of reinstatement and
the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the applicant, however,
has expressed strong resentment in the manner in which this has
happened despite the earlier order passed by this Court as
aforesaid. On the other hand learned counsel for the State states
that there would not be any such order in future. However, we make it
clear that in future if any order of reinstatement is to be passed it
should be passed only after seeking approval of this Court. We are
observing this only in view of special facts and circumstances of the
case.
With the said observations these Crl. M.Ps have been
disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
16. During the pendency of the C.W.P. No.6675 of 1996, the applicant
reached the age of superannuation and retired from services. On
9.12.2002, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the C.W.P.
No.6675 of 1996 filed by the applicant. The operative part of the
order is reproduced as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
In the light of the aforesaid factual position and in view of the fact
that the Government itself has admitted in its order dated 11.12.2000
that the impugned orders had been passed in violation of the service
rules, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 29.3.1996 and
27.4.1996 cannot be sustained. They are accordingly quashed. Since
the petitioner has already retired, the respondents are directed to
compute the consequential benefits due to the petitioner under the
service rules and pay the same to him within three months from the
date on which a certified copy of this order is made available to
them."
17. As this Court vide order dated 14.2.2001 had held that if any order of
reinstatement of the applicant is to be passed, it should be passed
only after seeking approval of this Court, the State of Haryana filed
Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995 in this
Court for seeking permission of this Court to implement the order
dated 9.12.2002 passed by the High Court reinstating the applicant
into the service.
18. This Court vide order dated 3.11.2003 dismissed the Crl.M.P. No. 8421
of 2003 and did not grant permission to reinstate the applicant. This
Court held as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
It appears that Inspector Ramphal had filed Writ Petition bearing No.
6675 of 1996 seeking reinstatement. That Writ Petition was pending in
January and December, 2000 when orders of reinstatement were passed.
Thus orders of reinstatement has been passed even though the matter
was sub-judice before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Writ
Petition was pending even when this Court dealt with the Crl.M.P. It
was not pointed out to this Court that a Writ Petition was pending
before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Had it been pointed out this
Court could have directed that orders of this Court be brought to the
notice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. Writ Petition No. 6675 of 1996
reached for hearing before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 9th
December, 2002. The Punjab & Haryana High Court by order of the same
date has quashed the orders dated 29th March, 1996 and 27th
April, 1996. Reading of the order dated 9th December, 2002 makes it
clear that the only reason why the termination of service has been
quashed is because an impression was given to the Punjab & Haryana
High Court that the dismissal and reversion orders were only passed
because of the conviction of the officer and that after acquittal
there is no ground on which termination and reversion could be
sustained. A reading of the order dated 9th
December, 2002 shows that Punjab & Haryana High Court was not informed
that an enquiry committee had found the officers guilty of dereliction
of duty. The Punjab & Haryana High Court was not informed that a
statement had been made before this Court on 16th August, 1996 and
termination had taken place pursuant to the assurance given to this
Court. Also the subsequent order dated 14th February, 2001 has
obviously not been brought to the notice of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court. It appears to us that the Government is colluding with the
officer in trying to some how or the other get him reinstated. In our
view, this is playing with the Courts. This cannot be permitted. We
do not grant permission to reinstate Inspector Ramphal. This order be
brought to the notice of Punjab & Haryana High Court by the State of
Haryana and by our Registry. .........."
19. The High Court vide order dated 9.12.2005 recalled the order dated
9.12.2002 and restored the C.W.P. No.6675 of 1996 to its original
number. The learned Single Judge observed as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The writ petition was admitted on 2.8.1996 and came up for final
hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court and was allowed
on 08.12.1997. Against the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No. 270
of 1998 was filed before this Court, which was heard on 10.11.1998.
The case was then remanded to the Single Judge by observing that the
writ petition was decided on a single question that was agitated.
Since the petitioner had raised some other submissions, he was given
liberty to urge the same before the Single Judge and direction was
issued to list the writ petition before the Single Judge, accordingly.
When the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge, he
noticed as can be seen from order dated 17.8.2001 that the petitioner
had been convicted and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment
for offences under Sections 323/342 of the Indian Penal Code for the
same incident which had led to order of his dismissal. The petitioner
had then filed a criminal appeal against the said judgment, which was
pending before this Court. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, ordered
that the case be re-listed only after the decision of the criminal
appeal. The writ petition was, accordingly, adjourned sine-die.
Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing before
another Bench after the acquittal of the petitioner of the criminal
charge. The learned Single Judge then vide his order dated 9.12.2002,
allowed the writ petition in following terms:-
I am of the view that the impugned order dated 29.3.1996 and
27.4.1996 cannot be sustained. They are accordingly quashed.
Since the petitioner has already retired, the respondents are
directed to compute the consequential benefits due to the
petitioner under the service rules and pay the same to him
within three months from the date on which a certified copy of
this order is made available to them."
20. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 9.12.2010
dismissed the C.W.P. No.6675 of 1996 filed by the applicant. The
operative part of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
In view of what has been noticed above, it is clear that it would not
be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the lis raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has very clearly expressed its strong disapproval as to what all has
happened in this case. The State counsel has given an undertaking
that there would not be any such order of reinstatement in future.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in future if any order of
reinstatement of the petitioner is passed, it should be passed only
after approval from this Court, meaning, Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In this view of the matter, this lis raised by the petitioner, cannot
be gone into in the present writ petition. It would be appropriate
for the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court if he is left
with any grievance. Otherwise also, I have not been able to find any
merit in the plea raised by the petitioner."
21. On 3.2.2011, the applicant feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order
dated 9.12.2010, filed L.P.A. No.992 of 2011 before the Division Bench
of the High Court. On 12.8.2011, the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the aforesaid L.P.A. filed by the applicant and affirmed the
order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court observed as under:-
"................. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant
is the result of undertaking given by the State counsel before Hon'ble
the Supreme Court when it was found that the respondent-State was hand
in glove with the appellant. Therefore, this Court cannot tinker with
either the undertaking given by State counsel nor it could observe
anything with regard to order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The
appeal does not deserve admission and is, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same
is dismissed."
22. The applicant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2011 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court filed Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 29555 of 2011 in this Court. On 14.3.2013, when the said
special leave petition came up for hearing, this Court gave liberty to
the applicant to file the appropriate application.
23. On 10.01.2014 this application was listed before the learned Registrar
when following order was passed:
"The ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the ld. Counsel for the
respondent No.4 are present.
What gets revealed from the perusal of the office report is
that the ld. counsel for the respondent No.4 has on 27.11.2013 filed a
letter stating therein that for the purpose of the present
application, the petitioner and the applicant/respondent No.4 are
the only necessary parties and the other respondents are not
necessary for the determination of the lis. The petitioner has
already filed his reply to the said application. Therefore, the
application shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court
for further future directions."
Submissions
24. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that the applicant is not bound by the observations made by
this Court in its order dated 3.11.2003 because neither any notice of
the Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 was issued to the applicant nor the
applicant was served with the copy of the said application filed by
the State of Haryana. As no notice was issued to the applicant, he
was not present to assist and put forth his case before this Court. He
submitted that the applicant has been condemned unheard. He further
submitted that, as is clear from the order dated 3.11.2003, the
applicant was not heard and no opportunity was given to the applicant
by this Court before passing of the order dated 3.11.2003. The said
order has seriously prejudiced the case of the applicant and grave
injustice has been done to the applicant inasmuch as the High Court
had set-aside the order of dismissal passed by the State of Haryana
and after passing of the order dated 3.11.2003 by this Court, the
learned Single Judge recalled the order dated 9.12.2002 whereby the
applicant was ordered to be reinstated into service. Thereafter, the
C.W.P. No. 6675 of 1996 was re-heard and in view of the order dated
3.11.2003 passed by this Court, the High Court did not examine the
merits of the dismissal order passed against the applicant. The
Division Bench of the High Court also, in view of the order dated
3.11.2003, dismissed the L.P.A. of the applicant.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there was no
question of reinstatement of the applicant because when the State of
Haryana filed the application for implementation of the judgment dated
9.12.2002, the applicant had already superannuated from service and
only the question of retiral benefits remained. He further submitted
that in the interest of justice, it is necessary that this Court may
clarify the order dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.
No.8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995 and direct the High
Court to examine the merits of the order of dismissal dated 27.4.1996
and decide the Writ Petition of the applicant i.e. C.W.P. No.6675 of
1996.
26. On the other hand, on 25.11.2013, Mr. Navin Chawla, learned counsel
for the petitioners filed a reply to the application of applicant
(respondent No.4 in the SLP) seeking clarification of Order dated
03.11.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the
following objections:-
i) That the application filed by the applicant/respondent No.4 under the
garb of clarification seeking review of the Order dated 3.11.2003 is
liable to be dismissed as no ground of review has been made out in the
application.
ii) That the present application is barred by limitation. The order was
passed on 3.11.2003 and was well within the knowledge of the
applicant/respondent No. 4 and it was also directed that the said
order be brought to the notice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
In view of the above, there could not have been any occasion for
the applicant to challenge his removal from service and
therefore, the revival of the writ petition itself was
incorrect.
iii) That the applicant has not sought any review of the order or recall of
the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767
and 5768 of 2000 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 whereby this Court
had directed that in future if any order of reinstatement is to be
passed, it should be passed only after seeking approval of this Court.
iv) That this application under reply is a clear abuse of the process of
this Court.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the applicant
has been found guilty of illegally detaining the petitioners and
custodial torture. He further submitted that the applicant, in
collusion with the State of Haryana, has been repeatedly trying to get
himself reinstated and acquitted of the criminal charges against him.
It is only because of this Court that the applicant has been
unsuccessful in such attempt. He submitted that not only this Court
has twice prevented the re-instatement of the applicant but has also
set-aside his acquittal from the criminal charges by remanding the
matter back to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the State had
intentionally not brought the entire evidence to the notice of the
High Court leading to the acquittal of the applicant from the criminal
case.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts of the
case would also show how difficult it is for a person to fight with
might of the State and delinquent officers it wants to protect and how
in spite of the direction passed by this Court, repeated attempts are
being made to somehow give benefit to the applicant on one pretext or
the other.
29. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of
this Court in the case of Indresh Kumar Vs. Ramphal & Ors. (2010) 2
SCC 241, in which this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated
6.1.2010 allowed the appeal filed by Mr. Indresh Kumar, Petitioner and
remanded the matter back to the Hon'ble High Court for a fresh
consideration as various vital piece of evidence had not been brought
to the notice of the High Court. A perusal of the aforesaid case
shows that most of the facts of the present Crl.M.P. No. 10148 of 2013
in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 are narrated in the said judgment
and order dated 6.1.2010.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner has denied that the applicant
is not bound by the observation made by this Court in the Order dated
3.11.2003 passed by this Court. He further submitted that the
applicant, all throughout, has been aware of the passing of the said
order by this Court but has chosen to take his chance with an attempt
to mislead the High Court of Punjab & Haryana again, instead of filing
an application seeking review of the said order if he was aggrieved of
the same.
31. He further submitted that the effect of the judgment and order dated
9.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana was
reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefit.
However, in view of the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by this Court,
the said order could not have been implemented by the Respondent, i.e.
Government of Haryana, without seeking leave of this Court. As the
order dated 9.12.2002 had been passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana upon being mislead by the applicant and Government of Haryana,
respondent No.1, the question of implementing the same did not arise
and was rightly rejected by this Court in its order dated 3.11.2003.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied that it is in the interest
of justice that this Court clarifies the Order dated 3.11.2003. He
further submitted that the order dated 3.11.2003 requires no
clarification and the Order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicant is correct and in
accordance with the order dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court.
33. After hearing the counsel for both the parties it is very clear that
the applicant (Ramphal) has tried to circumvent the process of Court
by approaching the Court in guise of different reasons. As this Court
has observed earlier also, the applicant has tried to get himself
reinstated, or avail retiral benefits contrary to the earlier order of
this Court. Present application for clarification of the order dated
03-11-2003 again is a vexatious one. There appears to us no need for
clarification as the order is already very comprehensive and succinct.
34. After perusing the facts which we have already stated in the preceding
paragraphs, it appears to us that the petitioners under the garb of
clarifications tried to have an order to reopen the case and to deal
with the same when all the points have been decided. We cannot keep
our eyes shut in the matter that the order was passed on 03.11.2003
and was within the knowledge of the petitioner/applicant. From the
facts it is obvious that the petitioner is trying to abuse the process
of the court and we do not appreciate such steps rather deprecate the
same. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this petition.
35. In the light of the foregoing, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.10148 of 2013 is dismissed with costs.
.........................................J
(M.Y. EQBAL)
..........................................J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2014.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now