Allahabad High Court
Udai Veer Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3418 of 2021
Petitioner :- Udai Veer Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nasir,Rahul Kumar Srivastava,Rashida Fatima
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Nasir, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pratyush Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 05.06.2020 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal (Annexure No.1) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground of highly time barred, impugned order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the opposite party No.1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure No.2) and impugned punishment order dated 30.04.2013 whereby the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad has awarded censure entry (Annexure No.3).
Briefly, it is stated that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 19.10.1990. While he was posted in Civil Police in Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad dated 16.03.2013, whereby he was required to submit his reply for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.04.2013 (Annexure No.5). Thereafter, the impugned punishment order has been passed by the opposite party No.3 (Annexure No.3). After four years, the petitioner preferred representation on 14.09.2017 to the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow under Rule 25 of U.P. Subordinate Rank Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 [here-in-after referred to as 'Rules of 1991']. When the said representation has not been decided, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition No. 1550 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2018 directing the respondent-State to decide the representation within three months. Pursuant to this order, the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. passed the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No. 29 of 2020 before the State Public Services Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the matter is highly time barred and hence not admissible under Rule 5 of U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. Feeling not satisfied, the instant writ petition has been preferred.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition contrary to the provisions of Rule 25 of U. P. Subordinate Rank Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and Circular No.D.G.7/2001 dated 08.03.2001. He further submits that while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Amar Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and others [(2012) 30 LCD 702] that limitation for filing claim petition has to be calculated from the date of last order passed by the Statutory Authority on merit. Lastly, he submits that the impugned orders passed by the Punishing Authority and Appellate Authority are against the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that during his posting at Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad, the petitioner misbehaved with one Constable-Sri Shyam Veer Singh in a drunken state and used abusive language. He also broken the door of the barrack of the Police Station. When the petitioner was required to get himself medically examined, the petitioner ran away from the police station to evade the medical examination. The act of the petitioner was reported in the day book of Police Station at Report No. 7 at 1840 dated 07.10.2012. In this regard, a preliminary enquiry was instituted wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded censure entry under Rule 4 ((14)(b) and Rule 14 (2) of Rules of 1991 by the opposite party No.3 vide order dated 30.04.2013. Though the petitioner has remedy to file an appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 and thereafter Revision under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991, but the petitioner did not avail the same. Instead, the petitioner preferred a representation on 14.09.2017 at a very belated stage. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected as stated above. Next, he submits that though the petitioner has preferred explanation to the show cause, but no averment has been made with respect to non-supply of preliminary inquiry report. Lastly, he submits that the Tribunal after taking consideration the punishment order dated 30.04.2013 and provisions contained in U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, pertaining to limitation, dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner at the admission stage being highly time barred.
Controverting the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner without providing a copy of preliminary inquiry report and other documents, contrary to the provisions of Rules of 1991 and Circulars dated 08.03.2001 and 10.02.1989.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record including the impugned orders, we are of the view that the pleas raised by the petitioner have been considered by the Tribunal and thereafter, the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of highly time barred. More over, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the punishment order, but he chose not to file an appeal within the stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of the punishment order. Instead, he preferred a representation to the opposite party No.1 after four years from the date of passing of the impugned punishment order. Law has long set its face against delay in approaching the court. The courts have consistently declined to condone the delay and denied relief to litigants who are guilty of laches. Litigants who are in long slumber and not vigilant about their rights are discouraged by the courts. Belated claims are rejected at the threshold. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal is perfect and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.06.2020.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]
Order Date :- 10.1.2023
lakshman
