- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of dismissal dated 16.07.1979 passed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and clause 3 (i) of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(2.) The writ petitioner (now represented through his legal representatives) was working on the post of Constable and came to be dismissed vide order 16.07.1979 for the reason that the department considered him to be a participant in the strike of police personnel in the year 1979. It is contended that in the year 1979 a large number of police employees were dismissed from service following strike by the police employees on a demand raised by the employees to form a Union of Non-gazetted Employees. At the time of strike, the petitioner was posted at CID, C.V. Cooperative Embezzlement Branch, Udaipur. On 12.05.1979, the petitioner had applied for casual leave on account of his wife's illness from 15.05.1979 to 29.5.1979. This casual leave was granted but as the same was not availed of, it was canceled. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for casual leave from 19.05.1979 to 29.05.1979 excluding 23th May, 1979 as the petitioner was required to appear in the court as a prosecution witness on that date. The petitioner applied for privilege leave for the period from 30.05.1979 to 30.06.1979 which was duly sanctioned to him. The police agitation had started on 22.05.1979. The petitioner reached back at Udaipur after availing casual leave on 29.05.1979 along with his wife and had not taken part in the agitation. He was arrested along with several other policemen on 01.06.1979 and remained in judicial custody up till 26.06.1979. Thereafter, he was released on personal bond by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The petitioner was eventually dismissed from service by invoking Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 16.7.1979 and he sent several reminders for expediting the appeal as the appeal was not being decide. Two such letters are dated 09.03.1981 and 20.03.1981. The respondent State taking the two letters which were a request for expediting the hearing of appeal, as the appeal itself , dismissed the appeal on 29.6.1982 on the ground that the appeal was time barred. The petitioner then wrote to the respondents that he had filed the appeal within time and that the letter dated 9.3.1981 and 20.3.1981 were only reminders. It is submitted that about more than a hundred police employees were dismissed in connection with the police strike and writ petitions were filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the dismissal orders and the same were allowed by a common judgment dated 07.04.1980. The Division Bench allowed some of the State appeals and rejected others. An Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while deciding the Special Leave Petition , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30.07.1978 gave direction to the respondent State to constitute an appellate authority not below the rank of an Deputy Inspector General of Police to factually examine the justification of orders of dismissal while giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to decide the appeals within a period of six months. On coming to know that similarly situated persons who had been dismissed from service on the ground of participating in the agitation and their case was to be considered again in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , the petitioner again reiterated his case but the same has been rejected on the ground that he was not a party in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.332/1989 and the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 26.07.1989 by which the High Court directed the appellate authority concerned to decide the appeal of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30.07.1987 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter was decided by the State and the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved against the orders passed refusing to take the petitioner back in service, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents categorically taking stand that the orders passed are correct.;