Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) The facts of the case in brief are that while working as Collection Amin in the revenue department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, a FIR was registered against the petitioner along with five other persons Under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, at Police Station Jam, District Meerut. After trial of the aforesaid case all the six persons including the petitioner were convicted by court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 30.6.1984. According to the petitioner, on account of his conviction Under Section 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., in the aforesaid criminal case his services were terminated vide order dated 10.12.1987 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut. Against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1984, the petitioner and other convicted persons have preferred an appeal before this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 1772 of 1984. On 4.4.1996 the aforesaid appeal was allowed by Division Bench of this Court, whereby the order of conviction and sentence has been set aside. In para 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the "appellate court has held that considering all these circumstances, it must be held that the doubt having arisen on the question of the acceptability or reliability of the prosecution story is of such nature which is not only a reasonable one but which also reinforces the theory that Manohar and Kunita were not there at the time of murder of Subhash". It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted a certified copy of order passed by this Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal, to the Collector, Meerut along with an application made to him on 22.4.1996. It is stated in the aforesaid application that in view of G.O. dated 12.10.1979, a copy of which is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service on account of his acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case. The petitioner has also filed the order of reinstatement of Sri Virendra Giri and Sri Brijendra Giri, who were co-accused with him in the aforesaid criminal case and acquitted in the same judgment and order passed by this court in appeal. The orders of reinstatement passed in respect of the aforesaid persons by the officers of different department are on record as annexure 4 and 5 of the writ petition. The respondent did not pass any order in respect of petitioner for a quite long time. Feeling aggrieved against the inaction of respondent the petitioner has earlier tiled a writ petition No. 30966 of 1998 which was decided by this court on 23.9.1998, and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the Collector; Meerut has passed an order on 18.2.1999 whereby the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 18.2.1999 the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut, which was dismissed by him on 2.12.1999. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Meerut and Commissioner, Meerut the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.2.1999 and 2.12.1999 contained in annexure 8 and 11 of the writ petition and further a direction in nature of mandamus is sought for commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as Collection Amin since 1986 up to 30.7.1995 and entire benefit of service may be given to him and thereafter the respondents may be directed to pay his pension admissible to the post in question. A further mandamus is sought for commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits since 11.8.1983.
(2.) On behalf of the respondents a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was convicted Under Section 302/149 IPC on 30.6.1984 by the order of 1st. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut and he was sentenced for imprisonment of life and Under Section 148 IPC he was sentenced for a period to 18 months. On the basis of aforesaid conviction the petitioner was suspended by order dated 8/9.9.1986. Thereafter on 30.10.1986 he was served a charge sheet and was asked to submit his reply within 15 days, by Enquiry Officer appointed for holding inquiry against him. Who after holding inquiry submitted report to the District Magistrate on 24.10.1987 and after going through the record i.e. finding recorded by Enquiry Officer and reply of the petitioner, the District Magistrate/Collector Meerut has passed a detailed order on 10.12.1987 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Collector Meerut dated 10.12.1987 is already on record as annexure 1 of the writ petition but the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of dismissal either at any departmental forum or any judicial forum and did not seek any relief of certiorari for quashing the same either in earlier writ petition or in this writ petition. As such a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the aforesaid order has become final against the petitioner. In para 11 of the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a clear-cut stand that the petitioner's service have been terminated by way of dismissal after holding full- fledged disciplinary inquiry against him. In para 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Government Order dated 12.10.1979 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. In para 18 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner cannot claim parity with regard to Virendra Giri and Brijendra Girt who were co-accused, but were employees of other departments. It is not known to the deponent of that counter affidavit as to whether any departmental / disciplinary inquiry had been held against the aforesaid persons or not.
(3.) I have heard Sri Hemendra Kumar Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the record.;