Dilip Kumar Sahu, aged about 56 years, son of Late Narayan Sahu, resident of v. through The State of Jharkhand, 1. its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4477 of 2019 ------- Dilip Kumar Sahu, aged about 56 years, son of Late Narayan Sahu, resident of Gurudwara Road, Lower Hatia, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. ..… Petitioner Versus through The State of Jharkhand, 1. its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. District-Gumla. 4. Commissioner-cum-Dy. Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. ..… Respondents Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Deputy Development ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- : M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Shilipi For the Petitioner Gadodia, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, AC to GP-VI CAV On 28.06.2024 ------- Pronounced on: 16/08/2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 05-08-2006; passed by respondent No.2 in Service Appeal as communicated vide letter No: 312 dated 07.08.2006 as well as other order contained in Memo No: 2625 dated 22.09.1997; passed by Respondent No.3 modifying the previous sanction withholding two annual increments and further withholding salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 20-10-1986 to the post of Village Level 1 Worker (in short “VLW”), now designated as Jansewak. On 18-12-1990, while the petitioner was posted as VLW in Ruidih in the district of Gumla, he was served with a charge sheet issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla (Respondent No.3) on the allegation of dereliction and irresponsibility in Government work, misleading higher authorities and violating Government Rules. Thereafter, on 06-01-1991, the petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of the allegations contained in the charge sheet before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gumla who was the Enquiry Officer. Henceforth, on 03-04-1991 vide letter No. 184, the Enquiry officer submitted his report to the Director, Account, Administration & Self Employment Program, District Rural Development Authority, Gumla holding therein that the charges were not proved. The respondent No.3, while disagreeing with the enquiry report, asked the Respondent No.4 to re-enquire the matter, in furtherance of which Respondent no.4 submitted his report holding that the Charge Nos.1 & 2 could not be proved and so far, Charge no.3 is concerned; the petitioner was asked to be vigilant. Thereafter, on 13- 02-1992, the respondent No.4, by office order issued under Memo No.99 dated 13.02.1992, imposed a punishment of withholding of five annual increments and salary for the period of suspension against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.3 on 01-03-1993 which was rejected on 07-09-1993 by order as contained in Memo No. 723. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1953 of 1994 (R) with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment passed by the 2 Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Order which was simultaneously dismissed by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by an order dated 17.05.1995. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal being LPA No. 288 of 1995; whereby the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to start fresh proceedings. Pursuant thereto; the Respondent No.3 modified the previous order of punishment and reduced the same to withholding of two annual increments and salary during the period of suspension. Finally, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.2, Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the said appeal and the same was communicated to the Petitioner vide Letter No.312 dated 07-08-2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed upon him is not only illegal but also not in consonance with the Service Rules and the same could not have been imposed in absence of any proved misconduct. He further submits that withholding of salary during suspension period would have been made after following the provision of Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code and non- compliance of the same vitiates the order by the respective respondent authorities. Moreover, in view of the impugned orders, the petitioner remained deprived from getting proper pay scale as well as the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme from the year 1999 instead of 2003 which shall also affect the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner has not been communicated the result of his representation for recalling 3 the order of punishment as the order suffers from vices of non–consideration of the materials on record and is perverse. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable either in fact and also in law as the same has been filed after the delay of 12 years and no cogent reason has been shown for such a huge delay; hence the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner was imposed with minor punishment of withholding of two annual increments and it was further ordered that during the suspension period the petitioner is not entitled for anything except subsistence allowance and that the respondent authorities have passed reasoned order after considering all aspects of the matter. He lastly submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of the A.C.P. as stated in para 10 of the memo No. 2981/bi, dated 01.09.2009, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein; the point of determination which arises is that, whether the petitioner is well within his rights to claim the relief after a lapse of 12 years. Before, delving into the merits of the case it is crucial to analyze the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with respect to delay and laches. The responding authorities have vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioner as the same is barred by delay and 4 laches. The essence of the matter is that the appellate order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment by the respondent no. 2 was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 312 dated 07.08.2006 and the instant case before this Court has been filed in the year 2019; that is, after a lapse of 12 long years. The law is now well settled that delay defeats equity. The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd v. K. Thangamppan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held in para 6, as under: “Delay or Laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercised the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate, the High Court refuse though invoke its extra ordinary power if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of the time and other circumstances, prejudice to the opposite party. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 7. Further, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at Paragraphs 16, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “ Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and 5 causes injury to the lis.” 8. Recently, in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India v M J James, (2022) 2 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 36 has reiterated the law in this regard. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow: “ What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A right not exercised for a long time is non- existent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non- suit the litigants who approach the court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay.” It is clear from the above-cited pronouncements that delay and laches defeats equity. Equity aids the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights. The doctrine of laches clearly states that law would only assist those who helped the Court in the speedy delivery of justice and not those who forget to assert their own rights in due time. By doing so, one is not only wasting the time of the Court but is also creating a sense in the world that a delay in filing a case will always be entertained in Court. 9. In this writ application, the petitioner has approached the Court with an inordinate delay of 12 long years and has not stated any reasonable justification so as to the explain the reason corresponding to the delay and for such unexplained delay, the cause of action of the petitioner has suffered a natural death and this Court cannot permit such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong, who has waived his own right to claim relief. 10. The claim of the petitioner that he made several representations to the competent authorities including respondent no.2 and 3 time and again for recalling the 6 order of punishment cannot be sustained as the same does not provide a satisfactory and justifiable reason for the unwarrantable delay. The petitioner has not been vigilant about his rights and has only gained a sense to invoke his right after a long period of 12 years. In such circumstances, on the ground of laches and delay alone, without deliberating the other issues raised by the petitioner, which is now only for academic purpose; this petition ought to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed, however, there is no order to cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated:- 16/08/2024 Amardeep/ AFR/ 7