LexHIMMAT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 HIMMA T SINGH A v. STA TE OF HARYANA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ petition,--Statement of bias made in "the grounds" c and contents thereof not verified-Held, in grounds of writ petition only a question of law can be raised and not a statement of fact-Further, in writ petition disputed questions of fact should not be entertained-High Court rightly decided on basis of affidavit evidence. Article 126-Plea not raised in writ petition or at the time of hearing D before High Court-Held, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time ~ in Supreme Court. Service Law: Retirement-Offer for voluntary retirement-Accepted-Later E application for withdrawal of offer not considered-Writ petition of employee dismissed-Decision of High Court affirmed. Punjab Police Rules, 1934: Rule 22.55-Correspondence Register-Entries in-Police Constable submitting his withdrawal of volunta1y retirement and taking it back-Held, F ..... question of making entry thereof in the register would not arise. Appellant, a Head Constable in the Police Department, was facing a departmental inquiry for unauthorized leave. During the pendency of the said inquiry he gave an application seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.8.2000. • By an order dated 24.8.2000 the offer of the appellant was accepted. He G thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the order ~ contending that he had withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement. -1 . The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, it was contended for the 557 H r 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R. A appellant that the High Court did not deal with the averments made in the writ petition that the fifth respondent was biased; and that since the Line Officer had clearly stated in his affidavit that the letter of withdrawal had been handed over to him, it was his duty to make an entry in the register in terms of Rule 22.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The contention that the fifth respondent was biased has been raised only in 'the grounds' of the writ petition and the contents thereof have not been verified. In the gro11nds of a writ petition only a question of law can be raised and not a statement of fact. No statement has been made in the body C of the writ petition. The statement made in the said grounds was also not verified in accordance with the writ rules. Besides, the fifth respondent in his affidavit denied and disputed the contents thereof. Whether the statement of the appellant or the fifth respondent was correct or not could not ordinarily be decided in a writ proceeding. It is well known that in a writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact should not be entertained. The High D Court has rightly arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of affidavit evidence. (565-E-Ff 2. Having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court the contention of the appellants that the Line Officer should have made entry in the register in terms of Rule 22.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is wholly E misconceived. If the appellant had taken back his application for withdrawal of resignation after submitting the same to the Lines Officer, the question of making any entry thereabout in the register would not arise. Besides, plea of alleged non-compliance of the said rule relating to maintenance of records has not been raised by the appellant either in the writ petition or in the special p leave petition. Such a question admittedly was also not raised at the hearing before the High Court. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the said contention before this Court for the first time. (565-B-C( 3. Furthermore, as has been rightly held by the High Court, the appellant was not entitled to any relief in view of his conduct as he suppressed G material facts. (565-G( CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2004. From the Final Order dated 14.7.2003 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14261 of2000. H Mahabir Singh, Rakt:sh Dahiya, Madhusumita Bora and A.P. Mohanty .,. > .. ,J ~ ~ 1 ' . ~ J: , HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 559. for the Appellant. Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Shanna, Pradeep Dahiya and T.V. George for the Respondents. The Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.