Allowed

Kamal Pandey v. Director General of Police

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2020SPA/77/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal accepted where the Learned Single Judge dismissed a writ petition on delay without considering the Petitioner's claim for parity with another acquitted constable or calling for counter-affidavits. Order set aside; Writ Petition restored to file.

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal set aside; the Writ Petition restored to file; respondents directed to file counter affidavits.

Kamal Pandey Vs Director General of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Special Appeal No.77 of 2020

¶3

Constable 940/123 Kamal Pandey ……… Appellant.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Director General of Police and Others .…….. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Dy. A.G. for the State.

¶7

Dated: 1 st July, 2020

¶8

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

¶9

Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶10

The application (CLMA 2673/2020) seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal is not opposed by Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

¶11

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in WPSS No.2677 of 2019 aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2019 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay.

¶12

The respondent writ-petitioner and another constable named Shahid Hussain were assigned the duty of escorting a prisoner named Amrik Singh to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani. On the intervening night of 4/5.1.2006, Amrik Singh fled from the hospital. An FIR was lodged on 5.1.2006 regarding the incident. The petitioner claims to have surrendered on 6.1.2006, and to have been granted bail on 7.1.2006. A criminal trial was conducted wherein the petitioner was acquitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was denied three days’ salary on the ground of ‘no work no pay’, and an adverse entry was made in his service record on 28.03.2014. The appeal preferred by the petitioner, there-against, was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 23.7.2015.

¶13

The other constable involved in the incident i.e. Shahid Hussain filed WPSS No.101 of 2015, and a learned Single Judge of this

¶14

¶15

Court, by his order dated 4.5.2018, allowed the writ petition, and quashed the order impugned therein dated 28.03.2014, holding that, since the incumbent was acquitted by the Trial Court, no adverse entry could be made against him in his service record; and the reply furnished by the petitioner had not been taken into consideration which was in violation of principles of natural justice. The order passed, in WPSS No.101 of 2015 dated 4.5.2018, is said to have attained finality.

¶16

In WPSS No.2677 of 2019 the petitioner, while claiming parity with Shahid Hussain, has specifically referred to WPSS No.101 of 2015 having been filed before this Court, and that the said writ petition was allowed on 4.5.2018. The learned Single Judge has, however, at the stage of admission itself, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay, holding that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court more than four years after the orders impugned therein were passed.

¶17

The learned Single Judge has not considered the petitioner’s claim of parity, or the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court (around a year and a half after WPSS No.101 of 2015 was allowed by the order dated 04.05.2018). As the writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission without the respondents being called upon to file their counter affidavit, on the petitioner’s claim for parity with the other constable Shahid Hussain, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order under appeal, and restore the Writ Petition to file. The respondents shall file their counter affidavits within four weeks from today. It is open to Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to request the learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition for admission, and for grant of interim relief, any day after four weeks from today.

¶18

The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Rdang/Balwant

Kamal Pandey v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Pandey v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirdosh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Surekha Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lal Bahadur Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Vs Praveen Ram Kohli

In Re, in the Matter of Vs Director General School Education

Ram Avtar Singh Dinkar Vs C.b.i. Through Superintendent Of Police, Cbi, Spe, Dehradun