Holding

Only questions of law may be raised in the grounds of a writ petition; unverified factual allegations and new contentions not raised earlier cannot be entertained, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

Himmat Singh, a Head Constable, applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted on 24 August 2000. He later claimed to have withdrawn the application on the same day, alleged bias by the fifth respondent, and contended that the Lines Officer failed to make an entry in the police correspondence register as required by Rule 22.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the petition raised the bias allegation only in the unverified grounds and did not raise the register‑entry issue in the body of the petition. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ, finding that the appellant had suppressed material facts and that the alleged withdrawal was not proven. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that only questions of law may be raised in the grounds of a writ petition, factual allegations must be verified, and a party cannot introduce new contentions that were not raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a statement of bias made in the unverified grounds of a writ petition can be considered by the court.
Whether factual allegations can be raised in the grounds of a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether a new contention regarding non‑compliance with Rule 22.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, can be introduced for the first time before the Supreme Court.
Whether the appellant is entitled to relief despite alleged suppression of material facts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 126, s. Article 226
Punjab Police Rules, 1934s. Rule 22.55

Subjects

Writ petitionBias allegationVerification of groundsFact vs. lawPunjab Police RulesRule 22.55Voluntary retirementService lawSupreme Court of IndiaArticle 226Article 126

Judgment

HIMMA T SINGH A
1 v.
STA TE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226-Writ petition,--Statement of bias made in "the grounds"
and contents thereof not verified-Held, in grounds of writ petition only a c
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
before High Court-Held, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time D
in Supreme Court.
~
Service Law:

Retirement-Offer for voluntary retirement-Accepted-Later
application for withdrawal of offer not considered-Writ petition of employee E
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
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

r
,J
HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 559.

for the Appellant. A
Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Shanna, Pradeep Dahiya and T.V. George for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order B
dated 14.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP
No.14261 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein
~ questioning an order dated 24.08.2000 by reason whereof his offer for voluntary
retirement was accepted.

The Appellant was appointed as a Constable in Haryana Police. In 1992, c
he was promoted as Head Constable. He allegedly had been on unauthorized
leave. The Station House Officer made a report to the superiors about his
behaviour and conduct. He was placed under suspension, whereafter a
departmental proceeding was initiated against him. During the pendency of
the said enquiry, according to the Appellant, when he was called to the office D
of the Superintendent of Police on 29.05.2000, filed an application wherein he,
~ inter alia, expressed his intention to go for voluntary retirement with effect
from 31.08.2000 in the following terms :

"Most respectfully I want to bring in your kind notice that on
19.8.1999 at about 9 P.M. I received an VT on wireless set from E
previous worthy S.P. Shri O.P. Singh JPS Hisar that, three unknown
culprits covering their mouth riding on an matiyala scooter round up
1 these.

2. That at that time 1 was present along with police party near

.
' ~
Pu spa Complex near Dabra Chowk Hisar.

3. That above culprits come on above scooter towards ply over
F

the turned in sector 13A Hisar Shopping Center I covered these in
Sector 13 while running behind these might right leg gone in sewerage
dip and I got fracture.

4. That on 19.8.99 I was admitted in G.H. Hisar remained in G.H. G
Hisar up to 4.10. I 999 and got 15% disability on 1.3.2000. I am still
J:
, under treatment.

5. That now I feel lackness in my right leg and now I want to go
on retirement from 3 I .08 .2000 ."
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A Allegedly, thereafter he was absolved of the charges framed against him
in the departmental proceedings. He despite reinstatement in service allegedly
was not allowed to perform any duty. Indisputably, by an order dated
24.08.2000, the offer of the Appellant for voluntary retirement was accepted,
which reads thus :

B "HC Himmat Singh No.852/HSR is hereby pennitted to proceed on
voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.8.2000 A.N. i.e. after the expiry of notice
period."

The Appellant, however, contends that he had withdrawn the said offer
on 24.08.2000 itself by filing an application which was forwarded to the
C Superintendent of Police by the Lines Officer, Police Lines, Hisar.

The Appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

"(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records
D of the respondents concerning the passing of the order retiring the
petitioner and after perusal of the same, order retiring the petitioner
be quashed and tht' petitioner be allowed to continue in service.

(ii) it is further prayed that an application which the petitioner
sent through Line Officer who has forwarded to the Supdt. Of Police
E on 24.08.2000 be allowed with all consequential reliefs and the petitioner
be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation."

A Division Bench of the High Court before issuing rule nisi went
through the records and opined that the contention raised by the Appellant
that he had withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement on 24.08.2000 may be
F correct. Pursuant to a direction issued by a Division Bench of the said court,
the then Superintendent of Police as also the Lines Officer affirmed their I'
respective affidavits.

We may furthermore notice that the Appellant in the writ petition raised
a serious allegation that he had been assaulted by the Fifth Respondent on
G 24.08.2000, who forcibly obtained an acknowledgment from him on the order
of retirement although no copy thereof was handed over to him. He while
acknowledging the same made the following endorsements therein :

"Sir,

Noted and application C1.lready for withdrawal/cancellation sent to
H
r
}.

HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 561
:
I your office today. A
Sd/- Himmat Singh, HC/SJL
P.S. HSR. 24.8.2000"

The said allegation of the Appellant had specifically been denied and
disputed by the Fifth Respondent in his aforementioned affidavit in the B
following terms :

,( "That in the order dated 18/24.8.2000, the deponent specifically
mentioned that the petitioner would be permitted to proceed on
voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.8.2000 i.e. after the expiry of the notice
period, therefore, the deponent was very well aware of the fact that
c
as per the provisions of the Rules the application of the petitioner for
seeking voluntary retirement could be allowed after the expiry of the
notice period."

It was further pointed out :
D
_:.,, "That some of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and
orders passed by the deponent in the case of the petitioner have
deliberately been not brought on record by the petitioner to suppress
the material facts from this Hon'ble Court and with a view to play
fraud upon the Court. The story of the petitioner is totally belied from E
the fact that he has himself sworn an affidavit duly signed by him,
dated 1.9.2000, that he has proceeded on voluntary retirement, whereas
in the present writ petition his own case is that he had made an
application on 24.8.2000 for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement. It
has been further mentioned by the petitioner that his letter dated
-'; 24.8.2000 was signed by the Line Officer, Police Lines, Hisar. It is F
respectfully submitted that though the records pertaining to the present
case have been kept in the custody of this Hon 'ble Court and the
alleged application dated 24.8.2000 is almost 2 years 9 months old, the
deponent most humbly submit from his memory .that he has never
received such an application dated 24.8.2000 from the petitioner in
G
person. In fact, had the petitioner made any such application he would
have never sworn the affidavit dated 1.9 .2000 and would have at least
' ""l made a mention or in the alternative would have made a mention of
the said application dated 24.8.2000 in the said affidavit. Had the
alleged application dated 24.8.2000 been presented by the petitioner
to the competent authority i.e. the deponent, there was no reason for H

~
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A the deponent to not consider the same because in the order dated 18/
24.8.2000 passed by the deponent it was clearly indicated that the
voluntary retirement of the petitioner would come into effect w.e.f.
31.8 .2000 i.e. after the period of the notice period."

It had further been averred :
B
" ... In fact, it seems that the petitioner has deliberately tried to mislead
this Hon'ble Court by not only casting very serious allegations of
ma/a fide against the deponent but also not producing before this
Hon 'ble Court relevant orders passed by the competent authority i.e.
the deponent and other material facts such as the affidavit of the
c petitioner dated 1.9.2000. it seems that the allegations of malafide
against the deponent do not originate from the facts verified by the
petitioner but may have originated from the improper legal advice
given to him in as much as there as not only been a deliberate attempt
on behalf of the petitioner to suppress material facts and circumstances,
D the petitioner may alsn have been fully aware of the fact that if true
facts are brought to the notice of the Court, the petition filed by the
petitioner may not have been entertained. To prejudice the mind of
this Hon 'ble Court, therefore, the petitioner has chosen a very novel
method i.e. firstly to make material suppression of facts and play fraud
upon this Hon 'ble Court and secondly to allege malafides against the
E deponent to prove his case. It is clear that the allegation of malafide
have not originated from the actual facts and circumstances."

The Lines Officer pursuant to the said directions affirmed an affidavit
before the High Court statini~ :

F "I. That I was working as Lines Officer, Police Lines, Hisar on t
29.5.2000. An application for seeking retirement w.e.f. 31.8.2000 was
submitted by HC Himat Singh (Petitioner) which was forwarded by the
deponent on the very same day and handed over to the petitioner on
his request which was submitted by him personally before the then
Superintendent of Police, Hisar-Sh. Sandeep Khirwar, 1.P.S.
G
2. That similarly an application for cancellation of voluntary
•
retirement dated 24.8.2000 addressed to the Superintendent of Police t
Hisar as put up before me by the petitioner and the same was also
forwarded and handed over to petitioner by me on his personal
H request on the same day."
HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA [SINHA, J.] 563
...,
The High Court on consideration of the entire matter was of the opinion A
that the contentions of the Respondents are correct holding :

" .. .it is not possible for us to record a finding of fact that the petitioner
actually communicated the application dated 24.8.2000 withdrawing
the request for retirement to the Lines Officer, Police Lines, Hisar, for
onward communication to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar..." B

I
Upon taking into consideration the affidavit affirmed by the Appellant
on 01.09.2000 wherein he categorically stated that he had requested to proceed
on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.08.2000, the High Court opined :

"On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit submitted by the petitioner, c
it is contended that the petitioner has concocted a story so as to get
out of his earlier request for voluntary retirement. The original of the
aforesaid affidavit has been produced in Court along with the official
record. It reveals that the stamp paper on which the affidavit was
submitted was purchased from the stamp vendor by the petitioner
_... himself. The aforesaid affidavit was duly notarized by a notary public. D
The particulars of the notary public, reveal his identity as Sh. Ram
Swaroop Singh Dhanda, Advocate, Hisar, Learned counsel for the
petitioner could not dispute the purchase of the stamp paper on which
the affidavit has been sworn, or the submission of the aforesaid
affidavit by the petitioner himself If the petitioner actually executed E
the aforesaid affidavit (which has also been attached to the written
statement as Annexure R-3), and submitted it to the authorities for
consideration, there can hardly be any doubt that the petitioner ever
withdrew his request·for voluntary retirement. In fact the aforesaid
factual position demonstrates that the petitioner has maneuvered
-\ official record to project an incorrect factual position so as to obtain F
a favourable order from us."

The High Court also rejected the contention of the Appellant that he
had been coerced to apply for voluntary retirement.

Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the G
... <\
-i
Appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the Lines Officer,
Hisar, had clearly stated in the affidavit that the letter of withdrawal of the
offer of voluntary retirement had been handed over to him, it was his duty
..:-
to make an entry therefor in the requisite register in terms of clause 12.55 of
the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He was furthermore in accordance with the said
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R.

A rules required to make an entry thereof, in the appropriate register showing
that the same had been taken back by the Appellant. The said rule reads thus:

''22.55.Register No. V. -The correspondence register shall be
maintained in two parts in Form 22.55. Each part shall contain 400
pages.
B
(I) In Part I shall be entered a brief abstract of all reports and
orders received ar the police station and of all letters and replies
dispatched which are not entered in any other book. '
(2) When any entry is made in the receipt columns the
C corresponding dispatch column shall be left blank for the reply and
vice versa.

This register is a receipt and dispatch register and is not meant
as a record of the full correspondence. Correspondence received and
not meant to be forwarded or returned shall be filed in monthly files.
D These shall be destroyed after two years.
...
(3) In Part II the receipt and return of processes shall be entered.
"""
Processes include

(a) Summonses to appear or to produce.
E
(b) Warrants of arrests.

(c) Search warrants

(d) Orders of proclamation, attachment, injunction or otherwise under
sections 87, 88, 95, 99, 133, 140, 143, 144 and 145, Code of Criminal
F Procedure. t
Warrants in all non-cognizable criminal cases and summonses in
non-cognizable criminal cases in which Government is the complainant
are served throL<gh the police.

G On the last day in each month a statement giving the following
information shall be entered in the daily diary and sidelined in red ink:-
•
(a) The number of warrants remaining un-executed at the end of the
previous month, received and executed during the current month
and remaining unexecuted at the end of it.

H (b) Similar information regarding summonses in cognizable and non-
'
}

HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 565

cognizable cases. A
(c) Similar information regarding other processes.
At the end of the year any statistics required shall be compiled
from such entries in the daily diary."

Having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court, we B
are of the opinion that the said contention is wholly misconceived. If the
Appellant had taken back his application for withdrawal of resignation after
.l submitting the same to the Lines Officer; the question of making any entry
thereabout in the register would not arise. Alleged non compliance of the said
rule relating to maintenance of records furthermore has not been raised by the
Appellant either in the writ petition or in the special leave petition. Such a C
question admittedly was also not raised at the hearing before the High Court.
We, therefore, cannot permit the Appellant to raise the said contention before
us for the first time.

Mr. Mahabir Singh then contended that the High Court did not deal
with the averments made in the writ petition that the Fifth Respondent was D
biased and in this connection our attention was drawn to ground no.7 of the
writ petition.

The said contention again has no force. Such a contention has been
raised only in 'the grounds' and the contents thereof have not been verified.
In the grounds of a writ petition only a question of law can be raised and E
not a statement of fact. No statement has been made in the body of the writ
petition. The statement made in the said grounds was also not verified in
accordance with the writ rules. Despite the same, as we have noticed
hereinbefore, the Fifth Respondent in his affidavit denied or disputed the
contents thereof. Whether the statement of the Appellant or the Fifth F
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 Court arrived at a
finding of fact on the basis of affidavit evidence.

We agree with the said findings of the High Court. Furthermore, as has G
been rightly held by the High Court, that the Appellant was not entitled to
any relief in view of his conduct as he suppressed material facts.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal,
which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000.
I:,.
RP. Appeal dismissed. H