Chattisgarh High Court
Yamuna Prasad Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17278
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL JHA NAFR
JHA Date:
2025.04.16
17:27:07
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2520 of 2024
1 - Yamuna Prasad Verma S/o Bhagwan Prasad Verma Aged About 61 Years
Posted As Head Constable No. 54 At Police Training School Mana, District
Raipur (C.G.)
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Additional Director General Of Police (Taining) Police Head Quarter, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Superintendent Of Police Police Training School Mana, District Raipur
(C.G.)
Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Petitioner- Yamuna Prasad Verma appears in person.
For Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
15/04/2025
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
Relief Soughts
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to provide the back wages from 10.07.1989
to 24.03.2006 because the petitioner had been terminated illegally
from his service by the respondent authorities.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to provide the benefit of 7 promotions.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to grant compensation amounting to Rs.
1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore) for mental harassment as illegal
departmental enquiry from 01.05.2010 to 03.02.2023 (12 years
and one month) which was conducted by the respondent
authorities against the petitioner despite the charges being
quashed bythe Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur.
10.4 That, the High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate."
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner got appointed as a Constable
under the respondents on 15.09.1983. While he was working on the post
of Constable, the petitioner, on account of an alleged misconduct and act
unbecoming of police personnel, was dismissed from service vide order
dated 10.07.1989. The appeal that he has filed also stood rejected on
22.02.1990. The order of dismissal from service was immediately
challenged by the petitioner vide O.A. No.2003 of 1990 before the then
existing State Administrative Tribunal. Subsequent to the abolition of the
Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the High Court where the case
was registered as WP No.6277 of 2003. The said writ petition stood
allowed on 10.11.2005 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The
operative part of the said order reads as under:
"12............The impugned orders Annexure-8 dated
30.06.1988 passed by the respondent No.5, Annexure-12
dated 10.07.1989 passed by the respondent No.3 and
Annexure- 14 dated 22.02.1990 passed by the respondent
No.2 are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However,
looking to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall
not be entitled for any back wages."
3. It is said that pursuant to the allowing of the writ petition the petitioner
was reinstated in service vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the petitioner
was taken back in service on the post of Constable. The petitioner
thereafter again filed yet another writ petition i.e. WPS No.1036 of 2012.
The petitioner in the said writ petition had claimed for seniority, pay
protection, arrears and other consequential benefits. This Court vide
order dated 10.02.2020 had dismissed the said writ petition. Against the
rejection of the said writ petition the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal
before the Division Bench of this Court vide WA No.270 of 2020. The
Writ Appeal also was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order
dated 12.01.2021. However, the right of the petitioner so far as his claim
for promotion and that of pay fixation was reserved permitting the
petitioner to move representation before the respondent authorities and
the competent authority in turn was required to decide the said
representation within eight weeks.
4. On account of non-compliance of the order passed in the Writ Appeal,
the petitioner filed a contempt case bearing No. 368/2021. The same
was disposed of vide order dated 29/06/2021 pursuant to the order dated
05/04/2021 passed by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved by
the order dated 05/04/2021, the petitioner preferred WPS No. 6835/2021.
The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
17/07/2023. From the order passed in the said writ petition, it is apparent
that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the departmental
promotion examination on two occasions, however, he failed to clear the
said examinations. Subsequently, again the petitioner was subjected to a
fresh departmental promotion examination on 29/09/2021, wherein he
was found fit for promotion, but on account of pending departmental
enquiry, the matter was kept in a sealed cover.
5. According to the petitioner, again a departmental enquiry was initiated
against the petitioner on 01/05/2010 in respect of the same charges for
which he stood terminated from service way back on 10.07.1989
whereby the authorities not being satisfied with the enquiry had ordered
for a de-novo departmental enquiry. In the said enquiry, no material was
found against the petitioner and hence, the authorities have decided to
close the enquiry proceedings for all times to come. Thereafter, the
petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order
dated 06/12/2023. The petitioner's case is that without any rhyme or
reason, the authorities conducted the departmental enquiry on the same
set of charges, which have already been considered and set-aside by the
Court and on account of the said inaction on the part of the authorities,
the petitioner has been deprived from getting the fruits of promotional
avenues, which causes whopping financial loss as also cause mental
trauma to the petitioner. Thus, by this petition, the petitioner is seeking
back-wages, promotional benefits and the compensation to the tune of
Rs. 1 Crore.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that
after the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the
petitioner has been reinstated in service on 17/03/2006. Thereafter, the
petitioner gave his joining and went on leave unauthorizedly from
20/03/2006 to 04/04/2006 (16 days). Again he went on leave without
prior permission and sanction from 07/04/2007 to 15/07/2008 (465
days). Looking to the said conduct of the petitioner, the departmental
enquiry was contemplated. On completion of the same, the penalty of
withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect was
imposed. He would also submit that even on account of registration of
FIR no. 46/2013, the petitioner was placed under suspension. However,
on completion of trial, he has been acquitted from the charges by
judgment dated 14/09/2018. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry
proceeding was also closed vide order dated 03/02/2023. Subsequently,
he has been promoted to the Head Constable. Thus, the petitioner is not
entitle for any relief as sought for by him in the Writ petition and the
petition may be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as
well as documents annexed with the Writ Petition.
8. As far as, the relief clause 10.1 is concerned by which he is seeking
back-wages is concerned, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has passed
an order dated 10/11/2005 in WP No. 6277/2003, wherein, the
respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner, however, declined
to grant back-wages. The said order has attained finality because the
same has not been questioned by the petitioner claiming back-wages.
Thus, at this juncture that too after a period of about two decades, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to seek back-wages.
9. As far as, seven promotional avenues as sought in relief clause 10.2 is
concerned, the alleged de-novo enquiry initiated in the year 2010 and the
same has been closed in the year 2023. During the said interregnum
period, the petitioner never challenged the said alleged de-novo enquiry
proceeding. Albeit, the petitioner preferred several writ petitions, writ
appeal as also the contempt case, but in any case, he has not questioned
the enquiry proceeding. On closure of departmental inquiry proceeding
in the year 2023, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head
Constable. Thus, at this juncture after lapse of about 1 ½ decade, the
petitioner cannot claim the promotional avenues.
10. Since, this Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled for relief
clauses 10.1 & 10.2, the question of compensation as claimed in relief
clause no. 10.3 does not arise.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Gowri/
Rahul
