High Court · 1990

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders and not being given a posting order in pursuance to the promotion order dated 22.01.1990 the writ petition has been filed on 22.05.2002 i.e. after a period of more than 12 years from the date when the alleged posting order was not issued and a period of 8 years from the date of issuance of the punishment order.

8. This Court vide order dated 24.05.2002 was of the view that there are laches in filing of the petition and required the petitioner to explain the said laches by means of a supplementary affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not sure as to whether said supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining the laches. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally tried to justify the laches in filing of the writ petition by contending that aggrieved against the posting order not being issued, the petitioner was repeatedly representing to the respondents for issuance of the posting order but the same was not issued and the representations were also not decided and consequently once the representations continued to remain pending at the end of the respondents as such the laches, if any, in filing of the writ petition merit to be condoned.

10. The aforesaid argument of Sri Agarwal is found to be patently fallacious keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 as well as in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy reported in (2010) 7 SCC 525 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that repeated representations would not extend the limitation and even if a representation has been decided on merit, the same would not revive a stale claim.

11.From perusal of the facts as have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apparent that the posting order was to be issued way back in the year 1990 while the petition has been filed after a period of almost 12 years without explaining the laches which are now sought to be explained that repeated representations were made but obviously such repeated representations cannot explain the laches in filing the writ petition. Hence, the prayer for issue of posting order is rejected on the ground of laches.

12. So far as challenge raised to the punishment order dated

07.01.1994 and the dismissal of the appeal and the memorial is concerned, suffice to state that a perusal of the punishment order would indicate that the matter pertains to embezzlement of the amount which was received by the petitioner while working as Development Officer which amount was received towards the premium of insurance policies. The petitioner admittedly has admitted of having committed the aforesaid misconduct on the basis of the official pressure brought upon him by the former branch manager Mr. Manmohan Singh. The amount which was usurped by the petitioner has also been deposited back even before the inquiry proceedings commenced against the petitioner although it was deposited under protest, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

13. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner admits to have committed the said misconduct on the basis of alleged pressure exerted by the former branch manager. Once the matter pertains to admitted embezzlement of the amount of the premiums that were being received by the petitioner in the capacity of being the Development Officer consequently it is apparent that the respondents have correctly proceeded to impose a penalty upon the petitioner of reduction in the basic pay.

14. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reply as had been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report has not been considered rather the Disciplinary Authority has been swayed by the fact that the petitioner admits that he has acted at the dictates of his superior authority.

15. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the reply as had been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report was not considered the fact of the matter would remain that the petitioner has categorically admitted that he has misappropriated the amount at the dictates and under the pressure of a superior authority. Once there is a categoric admission on the part of the petitioner of usurping the money there cannot be any occasion for taking a different view as has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the said argument is rejected.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders and not being given a posting order in pursuance to the promotion order dated 22.01.1990 the writ petition has been filed on 22.05.2002 i.e. after a period of more than 12 years from the date when the alleged posting order was not issued and a period of 8 years from the date of issuance of the punishment order.

8. This Court vide order dated 24.05.2002 was of the view that there are laches in filing of the petition and required the petitioner to explain the said laches by means of a supplementary affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not sure as to whether said supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining the laches. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally tried to justify the laches in filing of the writ petition by contending that aggrieved against the posting order not being issued, the petitioner was repeatedly representing to the respondents for issuance of the posting order but the same was not issued and the representations were also not decided and consequently once the representations continued to remain pending at the end of the respondents as such the laches, if any, in filing of the writ petition merit to be condoned.

10. The aforesaid argument of Sri Agarwal is found to be patently fallacious keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 as well as in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy reported in (2010) 7 SCC 525 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that repeated representations would not extend the limitation and even if a representation has been decided on merit, the same would not revive a stale claim.

11.From perusal of the facts as have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apparent that the posting order was to be issued way back in the year 1990 while the petition has been filed after a period of almost 12 years without explaining the laches which are now sought to be explained that repeated representations were made but obviously such repeated representations cannot explain the laches in filing the writ petition. Hence, the prayer for issue of posting order is rejected on the ground of laches.

12. So far as challenge raised to the punishment order dated

07.01.1994 and the dismissal of the appeal and the memorial is concerned, suffice to state that a perusal of the punishment order would indicate that the matter pertains to embezzlement of the amount which was received by the petitioner while working as Development Officer which amount was received towards the premium of insurance policies. The petitioner admittedly has admitted of having committed the aforesaid misconduct on the basis of the official pressure brought upon him by the former branch manager Mr. Manmohan Singh. The amount which was usurped by the petitioner has also been deposited back even before the inquiry proceedings commenced against the petitioner although it was deposited under protest, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

13. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner admits to have committed the said misconduct on the basis of alleged pressure exerted by the former branch manager. Once the matter pertains to admitted embezzlement of the amount of the premiums that were being received by the petitioner in the capacity of being the Development Officer consequently it is apparent that the respondents have correctly proceeded to impose a penalty upon the petitioner of reduction in the basic pay.

14. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reply as had been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report has not been considered rather the Disciplinary Authority has been swayed by the fact that the petitioner admits that he has acted at the dictates of his superior authority.

15. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the reply as had been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report was not considered the fact of the matter would remain that the petitioner has categorically admitted that he has misappropriated the amount at the dictates and under the pressure of a superior authority. Once there is a categoric admission on the part of the petitioner of usurping the money there cannot be any occasion for taking a different view as has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the said argument is rejected.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench