Chaman Lal Saraf (dead)by Lrs. & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors

Page 1

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

Page 2

2

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.”

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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.

Page 6

6

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.

Page 7

7

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.

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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.

Page 10

10

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 9 th December, 2002 shows that Punjab & Haryana

Page 11

11

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

Page 12

12

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.”

Page 13

13

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

Page 14

14

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.

Page 15

15

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

Page 16

16

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.

Page 17

17

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

Page 18

18

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

Page 19

19

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.

Page 20

20

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.

Page 21

21

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

Page 22

22

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.

Page 23

23

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)

Page 24

24

...…………………………………J (PINAKI CHANDRA

GHOSE)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 03, 2014.