22.The applicant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29555 of 2011 in this Court. On 14.3.2013, when the said special leave petition came up for hearing, this Court gave liberty to the applicant to file the appropriate application.
23.On 10.01.2014 this application was listed before the learned Registrar when following order was passed: “The ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the ld. Counsel for the respondent No.4 are present.
What gets revealed from the perusal of the office report is that the ld. counsel for the respondent No.4 has on 27.11.2013 filed a letter stating therein that for the purpose of the present application, the petitioner and the applicant/respondent No.4 are the only necessary parties and the other respondents are not necessary for the determination of the lis. The petitioner has already filed his reply to the said application. Therefore, the application shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court for further future directions.”
Submissions
24.Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for JUDGMENT the applicant submitted that the applicant is not bound by the observations made by this Court in its order dated 3.11.2003 because neither any notice of the Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 was issued to the applicant nor the applicant was served with the copy of the said application filed by the State of Haryana. As no notice was issued to the applicant, he was not present to assist and put forth his case before this Court. He submitted that the applicant has been condemned unheard. He further submitted that, as is clear from the order dated 3.11.2003, the applicant was not heard and no opportunity was given to the applicant by this Court before passing of the order dated 3.11.2003. The said order has seriously prejudiced the case of the applicant and grave injustice has been done to the applicant inasmuch as the High Court had set-aside the order of dismissal passed by the State of Haryana and after passing of the order dated 3.11.2003 by this Court, the learned Single Judge recalled the order dated 9.12.2002 whereby the applicant was ordered to be reinstated into service. Thereafter, the C.W.P. No. 6675 of 1996 was re-heard and in view of the order JUDGMENT dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court, the High Court did not examine the merits of the dismissal order passed against the applicant. The Division Bench of the High Court also, in view of the order dated 3.11.2003, dismissed the L.P.A. of the applicant.
25.Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there was no question of reinstatement of the applicant because when the State of Haryana filed the application for implementation of the judgment dated 9.12.2002, the applicant had already superannuated from service and only the question of retiral benefits remained. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, it is necessary that this Court may clarify the order dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995 and direct the High Court to examine the merits of the order of dismissal dated 27.4.1996 and decide the Writ Petition of the applicant i.e. C.W.P. No.6675 of 1996.
26.On the other hand, on 25.11.2013, Mr. Navin Chawla, JUDGMENTlearned counsel for the petitioners filed a reply to the application of applicant (respondent No.4 in the SLP) seeking clarification of Order dated 03.11.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following objections:- (i) That the application filed by the applicant/respondent No.4 under the garb of clarification seeking review of the Order dated 3.11.2003 is liable to be dismissed as no ground of review has been made out in the application. (ii) That the present application is barred by limitation. The order was passed on 3.11.2003 and was well within the knowledge of the applicant/respondent No. 4 and it was also directed that the said order be brought to the notice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. In view of the above, there could not have been any occasion for the applicant to challenge his removal from service and therefore, the revival of the writ petition itself was incorrect.
(iii) That the applicant has not sought any review of JUDGMENT the order or recall of the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767 and 5768 of 2000 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 whereby this Court had directed that in future if any order of reinstatement is to be passed, it should be passed only after seeking approval of this Court.
(iv) That this application under reply is a clear abuse of the process of this Court.
27.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the applicant has been found guilty of illegally detaining the petitioners and custodial torture. He further submitted that the applicant, in collusion with the State of Haryana, has been repeatedly trying to get himself reinstated and acquitted of the criminal charges against him. It is only because of this Court that the applicant has been unsuccessful in such attempt. He submitted that not only this Court has twice prevented the re-instatement of the JUDGMENTapplicant but has also set-aside his acquittal from the criminal charges by remanding the matter back to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the State had intentionally not brought the entire evidence to the notice of the High Court leading to the acquittal of the applicant from the criminal case.
28.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts of the case would also show how difficult it is for a person to fight with might of the State and delinquent officers it wants to protect and how in spite of the direction passed by this Court, repeated attempts are being made to somehow give benefit to the applicant on one pretext or the other.
29.The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Indresh Kumar Vs. Ramphal & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 241, in which this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2010 allowed the appeal filed by Mr. Indresh Kumar, Petitioner and remanded JUDGMENTthe matter back to the Hon’ble High Court for a fresh consideration as various vital piece of evidence had not been brought to the notice of the High Court. A perusal of the aforesaid case shows that most of the facts of the present Crl.M.P. No. 10148 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 are narrated in the said judgment and order dated 6.1.2010.
30.The learned counsel for the petitioner has denied that the applicant is not bound by the observation made by this Court in the Order dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court. He further submitted that the applicant, all throughout, has been aware of the passing of the said order by this Court but has chosen to take his chance with an attempt to mislead the High Court of Punjab & Haryana again, instead of filing an application seeking review of the said order if he was aggrieved of the same.
31.He further submitted that the effect of the judgment and order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana was reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefit. However, in view of the order dated JUDGMENT 14.2.2001 passed by this Court, the said order could not have been implemented by the Respondent, i.e. Government of Haryana, without seeking leave of this Court. As the order dated 9.12.2002 had been passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana upon being mislead by the applicant and Government of Haryana, respondent No.1, the question of implementing the same did not arise and was rightly rejected by this Court in its order dated 3.11.2003.
32.Learned counsel for the petitioner denied that it is in the interest of justice that this Court clarifies the Order dated 3.11.2003. He further submitted that the order dated 3.11.2003 requires no clarification and the Order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicant is correct and in accordance with the order dated 3.11.2003 passed by this Court.
33.After hearing the counsel for both the parties it is very clear that the applicant (Ramphal) has tried to circumvent the process of Court by approaching the Court in guise of different reasons. As this Court has observed earlier also, the JUDGMENT applicant has tried to get himself reinstated, or avail retiral benefits contrary to the earlier order of this Court. Present application for clarification of the order dated 03-11-2003 again is a vexatious one. There appears to us no need for clarification as the order is already very comprehensive and succinct.
34.After perusing the facts which we have already stated in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to us that the petitioners under the garb of clarifications tried to have an order to reopen the case and to deal with the same when all the points have been decided. We cannot keep our eyes shut in the matter that the order was passed on 03.11.2003 and was within the knowledge of the petitioner/applicant. From the facts it is obvious that the petitioner is trying to abuse the process of the court and we do not appreciate such steps rather deprecate the same. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this petition.
35.In the light of the foregoing, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.10148 of 2013 is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT (M.Y. EQBAL)