- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri Vipin Bihari, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by Shiv Jagat Pandey (petitioner), who was appointed as temporary constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (for short 'pac') and posted at 14th Batalion, 37th Vahini, PAC, Kanpur. Under an order dated 14th November, 1973, the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 311 (2) decided to dismiss the said constable from service. The reasons disclosed from the record is that the petitioner was involved in PAC revolt of 1973, which had resulted in Crime Case No. 506 of 1973 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 326, 380, 457, 397, 121/121-A of the Indian Penal Code being registered at Police Station Chhavani, Kanpur Nagar. The sessions trial resulted in a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 23rd December, 1981, whereby large number of PAC constables were convicted of the offence of which they were charged. Against the said judgment of the Sessions Court, large number of Criminal Appeals were filed including Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 filed by the present petitioner, Shiv Jagat Pandey. The appeal was heard by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and two different orders were passed for the purposes of allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner (Shiv Jagat Pandey ). Judgments delivered by two Hon'ble Judges separately on 21st December, 1992 qua Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 read as follows : "criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982 (wrongly typed as 478 of 1982 ). Shiv Jagat Pandey v. State (156) Shiv Jagat Pandey of 'e' company had been identified by Sheo Kumar Tripathi P. W. 14 and Mohd. Naqui P. W. 25. The statement of these witnesses cannot be taken into consideration for convicting an accused. The appeal of Shiv Jagat Pandey is allowed. His conviction and sentences awarded to him are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are discharged. " "criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1982. Shiv Jagat Pandey 'e' Company : This appeal is allowed. He was not an injured accused. He was not on duty nor he has been named by two witnesses. Therefore, his participation in the incident is doubtful. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. " On the strength of the said acquittal, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20080 of 1993 for being restored back in service. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1996 with a direction upon the petitioner to make a representation before the authority concerned. Petitioner filed representation before the authority concerned for reinstatement, request was not accepted, therefore, petitioner alongwith other persons filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19828 of 1998. On 17th September, 1998, the writ petition was also disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners within the time specified. In the meantime the State Government came out with a Government Order dated 7th September, 1998, which provided for re-consideration of the claim of the P. A. C. Constables, who had been removed from service because of participation in the 1973 P. A. C. Revolt (copy has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to writ petition No. 36194 of 1999 ). The Government Order dated 7th September, 1998 categorized the Constables, who had been dismissed from service because of participation in 1973 Revolt in following Categories : (a) Permanent constables, who had been dismissed under the order of the Governor, (b) Temporary constables who had been dismissed from service after one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof.
(3.) IT was clarified that in respect of (b) category constables, whose services were terminated because of their participation in 1973 P. A. C. Revolt on the ground that their services were no longer required being temporary employees would not be entitled to the benefits of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13th March, 1997 and dated 26th September, 1997 passed in various writ petitions. IT was clarified that the representations made by such employees be rejected and in case any difficulty is faced by the concerned officer, he may seek legal opinion. By means of the Government Order dated 13th November, 1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition No. 36194 of 1999), a further clarification was provided and it was stated that the representation made by such temporary constables, who had been dismissed under the order of the Governor in the background of their participation in the 1973 P. A. C. Revolt, may be considered and decided keeping in mind that under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the Governor has power to dismiss such employees either after month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof.;