High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Swaroop Singh v. I.G. Of Police Allahabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 2985 of 2000  RD-AH 108 (2 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2000.
Ram Swaroop Singh ........... Petitioner
The Inspector General of Police,
Allahabad and others ........... Respondents.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and by consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12th September, 1998, 11th February, 1999 and 25th August, 1999. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for directing the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits as well as pension to the petitioner treating him voluntary retired with effect from 30th August, 1968.
Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed on 15th December, 1942 as constable in police department. The petitioner applied for earned leave on 18th April, 1968 for 30 days. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner being Case Crime No.61 of 1968, under Sections 307 and 338 of I.P.C. in which he was arrested. After coming to know about the petitioner's arrest in the aforesaid criminal case, he was placed under suspension on 27th April, 1968. The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case with rigorous imprisonment of five years vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 1972. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction which too was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner in the year 1991 filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.36254 of 1991 claiming retiral benefits. In the writ petition the petitioner did not disclose the fact of Case Crime No.61 of 1968. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 28th May, 1998 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the appropriate authority. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Banda after the judgment of this Court. The Superintendent of Police, Banda vide order dated 12th September, 1998 took the view that petitioner having been convicted in criminal case for five years rigorous imprisonment be was treated as dismissed from service with effect from 24th April, 1972, the date of the judgment. It was stated by the Superintendent of Police that petitioner for the first time has given information of his conviction in the criminal case vide his representation dated 19th June, 1998. By a separate order of the same date, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected in which petitioner has claimed retiral benefits, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It was stated by the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner concealed the fact of his conviction by Court.. Further finding has been recorded that after petitioner's suspension on 27th April 1968 and even after expiry of 30 days of earned leave, the petitioner never reported in Police Line Banda. It was further noted that petitioner was to retire on 1st July, 1981 after attaining the age of superannuation. It has been categorically held that after suspension on 27th April 1968 or after expiry of one month's earn leave, the petitioner never gave his joining in the Police Line and was throughout absent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which too has been rejected vide order dated 11th February, 1999. The petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed on 25th August, 1999. Against the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 30th March, 1968. It has further been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case in which he was convicted for five years rigorous imprisonment. In the writ petition there is no details of any fact as to what steps there taken by the petitioner after his conviction on 24th April, 1972. It has also not been stated that petitioner after his suspension ever reported for joining or ever informed about his conviction by the Criminal Court.
A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been categorically denied that petitioner ever submitted any application for voluntary retirement. From the facts brought on the record it is not disputed that petitioner was involved in criminal case in which he was convicted with rigorous imprisonment on 24th April, 1972. Suspension of the petitioner has also not been denied with effect from 27th April, 1968. After suspension till the year 1991, the categorical case of the respondent is that petitioner never reported in the Police Line nor gave any information. A writ petition was filed in the year 1991, that too after ten years of his attaining the normal age of superannuation. The counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. It has been categorically denied in the counter affidavit that at any point of time, petitioner applied for voluntary retirement. The case of the petitioner that he made any application for voluntary retirement on 30th March, 1968 cannot be accepted. From the order of the Superintendent of Police, Banda it also does not appear that even before the authorities the petitioner pressed his claim of any voluntary retirement application dated 30th March, 1968. The petitioner absented from 23rd April, 1968 and never informed about his conviction by the Criminal Court on 24th April 1972. No error has been committed by the authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits in facts of the present case. The order of the Superintended of Police categorically records finding that for the first time petitioner has informed about his conviction by Criminal Court vide his application dated 19th June, 1998 which fact was even not brought before this Court in writ petition no. 36254 of 1991. The petitioner having not reported in the department from 27th April, 1968 and having not informed the department about his conviction by the Criminal Court on 24th April, 1972, the authorities have rightly taken the view that no retiral benefits can be claimed by the petitioner in facts of the present case. The Superintendent of Police has directed payment of provident fund which is in the petitioner's provident fund account. With regard to his salary during suspension period the order was to be separately passed as contemplated in the order dated 12th September, 1998. No case is made out for issuing any mandamus to treat the petitioner to have voluntary retired with effect from 30th August, 1968 and to quash the impugned orders. This is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.