- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the case of the petitioner in the instant petition was similar to that of Ex. Constable Balbir Singh, as he had also been dismissed from service vide order dated May 28, 1990 and that the statutory appeal had been filed before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated March 21, 1991 and further the revision petition filed against the same was also dismissed vide order dated December 26, 1991. The aforesaid orders had been challenged by way of invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide CWP No. 4266 of 1992 (Ex. Constable Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and others), which has been dismissed vide order dated December 8, 1998. This judgment has been challenged by way of the instant appeal.
(2.) The aforesaid Balbir Singh had also challenged the order of his dismissal vide CWP No. 4584 of 1992, which was allowed vide judgment dated September 2, 1996 by a learned Single Judge. This judgment, which has been placed on record, appended as Annexure P-7, was never ever challenged by the State Government.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the instant appellant is verbatim as the charges in both the cases were similar. Upon the aforesaid contention, a direction had been issued vide order dated 30.11.2006 to the learned Additional Advocate General for seeking instructions as to whether the charges in both the cases were similar and whether the appeal had been filed or not.;