Allahabad High Court
Home Gurad Resident No.10154 ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 332 of 2022
Petitioner :- Home Gurad Resident No.10154 Chandrapal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranab Ojha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following relief:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 28.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.4 in the light of Judgement and order passed in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dasrath Singh Parihar; and Dheer Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others.
b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide continuity in service with arrears of remuneration along with consequential benefits within a stipulated time framed as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner on 28.03.2016. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the same but no decision has been taken till date.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner has been terminated way back on 13.07.2016 but he has not challenged the termination order and has approached before this Court at a belated stage, therefore, the present writ petition is also hopelessly barred by limitation as there is no whisper about the delay in filing the present writ petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299, N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133, Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234 and in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even otherwise, a writ petition does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person who has no jurisdiction to do so. In support of their submission, they relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others VS. Prabhash Chandra Mishra reported in (2012) 11 SCC, 565. In view of the aforesaid, they submits that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned show cause notice dated 28.03.2016.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
A copy of termination order dated 13.07.2016 is being given by the learned Standing Counsel to counsel for the petitioner before the Court.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
Jitendra/-
