ORDER 1. We have heard Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana at length. By this criminal miscellaneous petition permission is sought to reinstate Inspector Ramphal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: a writ petition had been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that the petitioners therein had been illegally detained and tortured. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its order dated 13-2-1995 disposed of the writ petition without passing any effective order. Against the order dated 13-2-1995 a special leave petition had been filed before this Court. In that special leave petition, on 16-8-1996, a statement was made that the Government of Haryana is taking appropriate steps against the errant police officers. This Court was assured that required action would also be taken against the officers found guilty of dereliction of duty. On that statement, the special leave petition was disposed of. 3. Thereafter, a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed before this Court pointing out that even though an order of dismissal had been passed on 27-4-1996 subsequently Inspector Ramphal had been taken back in service by the State Government vide Letters dated 21-1-2000 and 11-12-2000. When this Court took exception to this, another order was passed on 10-1-2001 withdrawing the order of reinstatement. Noting this conduct, in an order dated 14-2-2001 this Court, inter alia, observed as follows : “3. … As per this order it seems in view of the last order by this Court the State Government has withdrawn the two orders passed in favour of the officer concerned, namely, the order of reinstatement and the order of dismissal. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, has expressed strong resentment in the manner in which this has happened despite the earlier order passed by this Court as aforesaid. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State states that there would not be any such order in future. However, we make it clear that in future if any order of reinstatement is to be passed it should be passed only after seeking approval of this Court. We are observing this only in view of special facts and circumstances of the case. 4. With the said observations these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been disposed of.” 4. It appears that Inspector Ramphal had filed writ petition bearing No. 6675 of 1996 seeking reinstatement. We are observing this only in view of special facts and circumstances of the case. 4. With the said observations these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been disposed of.” 4. It appears that Inspector Ramphal had filed writ petition bearing No. 6675 of 1996 seeking reinstatement. That writ petition was pending in January and December 2000 when orders of reinstatement were passed. Thus, orders of reinstatement had been passed even though the matter was sub judice before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The writ petition was pending even when this Court dealt with the criminal miscellaneous petition. It was not pointed out to this Court that a writ petition was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Had it been pointed out, this Court could have directed that orders of this Court be brought to the notice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 5. Writ Petition No. 6675 of 1996 reached for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9-12-2002. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by order of the same date has quashed the orders dated 29-3-1996 and 27-4-1996. Reading of the order dated 9-12-2002 makes it clear that the only reason why the termination of service has been quashed is because an impression was given to the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the dismissal and reversion orders were only passed because of the conviction of the officer and that after acquittal there is no ground on which termination and reversion could be sustained. A reading of the order dated 9-12-2002 shows that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was not informed that an Enquiry Committee had found the officers guilty of dereliction of duty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court was not informed that a statement had been made before this Court on 16-8-1996 and termination had taken place pursuant to the assurance given to this Court. Also, the subsequent order dated 14-2-2001 has obviously not been brought to the notice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It appears to us that the Government is colluding with the officer in trying to somehow or the other get him reinstated. In our view, this is playing with the courts. This cannot be permitted. We do not grant permission to reinstate Inspector Ramphal. It appears to us that the Government is colluding with the officer in trying to somehow or the other get him reinstated. In our view, this is playing with the courts. This cannot be permitted. We do not grant permission to reinstate Inspector Ramphal. This order be brought to the notice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the State of Haryana and by our Registry. 6. Accordingly, Crl. MP No. 8421 of 2003 stands dismissed with costs fixed at Rs 1000. The costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.