Atul Kumar age about 38 years S/O Late Gaya Singh R/O Village - path v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7474 of 2023 Atul Kumar age about 38 years S/O Late Gaya Singh R/O Village - path Kachak, P.O Fakhpur, P.S Karpi, District - Arbal, (Bihar) Versus … … Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand through, The Secretary Department of Home, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O + P.S-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. Commandant Indian Reserve Battalion -5, Gumla Camp, R/O I.R.B Head Quarter P.O Dhurwa, P.S - Dhurwa District Ranchi. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V --- 03/12.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding upon the respondents for Quashing of Memo No. 92 dated 28.09.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - 3) whereby and where under the petitioner has been dismissed from his service on post of Cook on allegation of unauthorized absence. And further prays that petitioner may be reinstated in his service with all consequential benefits.” 3. The memo of charge against the petitioner has been annexed along with the counter-affidavit which is dated 30.10.2012 indicating that the petitioner had been absenting from duty from 02.10.2012 without any permission and without any intimation to the respondents and the petitioner was earlier also subjected to departmental proceedings bearing number 01 of 2011, 07 of 2011, 02 of 2012 and 25 of 2012, but there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 02.10.2012 and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged in connection with treatment of his son, who expired on 15.10.2013. A copy of the death certificate has been placed on record and averments
Decision
have been made in the writ petition that the son of the petitioner was suffering from complicated disease. 2 5. On the point of delay in filing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 10 of the writ petition and submitted that after the death of his son, the petitioner approached the office of the Respondent No. 2, but no information was given about his service and the petitioner was kept in dark for about nine years by giving assurance that the petitioner may join in service when higher authority would take a decision in the matter. However, no supporting document or representation has been annexed with the writ petition in support of such a statement. 6. Further, the petitioner has referred to paragraph 11 of the writ petition to submit that the petitioner had made an application under Right to Information and was supplied information on 24.10.2018 which revealed that the petitioner was already terminated from service in the year 2013 itself and along with such information, the petitioner was served with a copy of the order of dismissal and the charge-memo and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 22.12.2023. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to the counter- affidavit to submit that the petitioner was throughout aware of the disciplinary proceedings against him and there is no cogent explanation for not approaching this Court within a reasonable time. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the filing of an application under Right to Information will not revive the cause of action. Otherwise also, as per the petitioner the document regarding his order of dismissal etc. was provided way back in the year 2018 and the present writ petition has been filed after expiry of 5 years from the date the petitioner claims to have received a copy of the order of dismissal. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the previous conduct of the petitioner was also not good and therefore also the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the impugned order is dated 28.09.2013, which has been challenged vide writ petition dated 22.12.2023. The records of the 3 case indicate that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings against him. Further, the past records of the petitioner, which has been mentioned in the charge memo, is also not in dispute. 11. From the records it further appears that a bald statement has been made in paragraph 10 that after the death of his son, the petitioner had approached the Respondent No. 2, but no response was given to him about his service, and the petitioner was kept in dark for about nine years. No date, no representation, etc., has been filed in support of the statement made in paragraph 10. Such vague statement cannot be relied to explain the delay of nine years as sought to be explained by the petitioner vide paragraph 10 of the writ petition. 12. This Court further finds that even if the best case of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner became aware of his order of dismissal and was also provided copy of all the connected documents on 24.10.2018, thereafter the petitioner has challenged the same after expiry of five years by filing this writ petition on 22.12.2023 and the writ petition is completely silent so far as further delay after 2018 is concerned. This court finds that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. 13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. 15. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)