1 - Yamuna Prasad Verma S/o Bhagwan Prasad Verma Aged About 61 Years Posted v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.16 17:27:07 +0530 2025:CGHC:17278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2520 of 2024 1 - Yamuna Prasad Verma S/o Bhagwan Prasad Verma Aged About 61 Years Posted As Head Constable No. 54 At Police Training School Mana, District Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Director General Of Police (Taining) Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Police Training School Mana, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Petitioner- Yamuna Prasad Verma appears in person. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following 2 reliefs:- Relief Soughts “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the back wages from 10.07.1989 to 24.03.2006 because the petitioner had been terminated illegally from his service by the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the benefit of 7 promotions. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore) for mental harassment as illegal departmental enquiry from 01.05.2010 to 03.02.2023 (12 years and one month) which was conducted by the respondent authorities against the petitioner despite the charges being quashed bythe Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. 10.4 That, the High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner got appointed as a Constable under the respondents on 15.09.1983. While he was working on the post of Constable, the petitioner, on account of an alleged misconduct and act unbecoming of police personnel, was dismissed from service vide order dated 10.07.1989. The appeal that he has filed also stood rejected on 22.02.1990. The order of dismissal from service was immediately challenged by the petitioner vide O.A. No.2003 of 1990 before the then existing State Administrative Tribunal. Subsequent to the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the High Court where the case was registered as WP No.6277 of 2003. The said writ petition stood allowed on 10.11.2005 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The operative part of the said order reads as under: 3 “12………...The impugned orders Annexure-8 dated 30.06.1988 passed by the respondent No.5, Annexure-12 dated 10.07.1989 passed by the respondent No.3 and Annexure- 14 dated 22.02.1990 passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages.” 3.
Decision
It is said that pursuant to the allowing of the writ petition the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the petitioner was taken back in service on the post of Constable. The petitioner thereafter again filed yet another writ petition i.e. WPS No.1036 of 2012. The petitioner in the said writ petition had claimed for seniority, pay protection, arrears and other consequential benefits. This Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 had dismissed the said writ petition. Against the rejection of the said writ petition the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court vide WA No.270 of 2020. The Writ Appeal also was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 12.01.2021. However, the right of the petitioner so far as his claim for promotion and that of pay fixation was reserved permitting the petitioner to move representation before the respondent authorities and the competent authority in turn was required to decide the said representation within eight weeks. 4. On account of non-compliance of the order passed in the Writ Appeal, the petitioner filed a contempt case bearing No. 368/2021. The same was disposed of vide order dated 29/06/2021 pursuant to the order dated 05/04/2021 passed by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved by 4 the order dated 05/04/2021, the petitioner preferred WPS No. 6835/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17/07/2023. From the order passed in the said writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the departmental promotion examination on two occasions, however, he failed to clear the said examinations. Subsequently, again the petitioner was subjected to a fresh departmental promotion examination on 29/09/2021, wherein he was found fit for promotion, but on account of pending departmental enquiry, the matter was kept in a sealed cover. 5. According to the petitioner, again a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 01/05/2010 in respect of the same charges for which he stood terminated from service way back on 10.07.1989 whereby the authorities not being satisfied with the enquiry had ordered for a de-novo departmental enquiry. In the said enquiry, no material was found against the petitioner and hence, the authorities have decided to close the enquiry proceedings for all times to come. Thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 06/12/2023. The petitioner’s case is that without any rhyme or reason, the authorities conducted the departmental enquiry on the same set of charges, which have already been considered and set-aside by the Court and on account of the said inaction on the part of the authorities, the petitioner has been deprived from getting the fruits of promotional avenues, which causes whopping financial loss as also cause mental trauma to the petitioner. Thus, by this petition, the petitioner is seeking back-wages, promotional benefits and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore. 5 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that after the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner has been reinstated in service on 17/03/2006. Thereafter, the petitioner gave his joining and went on leave unauthorizedly from 20/03/2006 to 04/04/2006 (16 days). Again he went on leave without prior permission and sanction from 07/04/2007 to 15/07/2008 (465 days). Looking to the said conduct of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry was contemplated. On completion of the same, the penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed. He would also submit that even on account of registration of FIR no. 46/2013, the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, on completion of trial, he has been acquitted from the charges by judgment dated 14/09/2018. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry proceeding was also closed vide order dated 03/02/2023. Subsequently, he has been promoted to the Head Constable. Thus, the petitioner is not entitle for any relief as sought for by him in the Writ petition and the petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as documents annexed with the Writ Petition. 8. As far as, the relief clause 10.1 is concerned by which he is seeking back-wages is concerned, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has passed an order dated 10/11/2005 in WP No. 6277/2003, wherein, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner, however, declined 6 to grant back-wages. The said order has attained finality because the same has not been questioned by the petitioner claiming back-wages. Thus, at this juncture that too after a period of about two decades, the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek back-wages. 9. As far as, seven promotional avenues as sought in relief clause 10.2 is concerned, the alleged de-novo enquiry initiated in the year 2010 and the same has been closed in the year 2023. During the said interregnum period, the petitioner never challenged the said alleged de-novo enquiry proceeding. Albeit, the petitioner preferred several writ petitions, writ appeal as also the contempt case, but in any case, he has not questioned the enquiry proceeding. On closure of departmental inquiry proceeding in the year 2023, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Constable. Thus, at this juncture after lapse of about 1 ½ decade, the petitioner cannot claim the promotional avenues. 10. Since, this Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled for relief clauses 10.1 & 10.2, the question of compensation as claimed in relief clause no. 10.3 does not arise. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/ Rahul