Ram Avtar Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 575 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner is a workman and is employed with respondent No. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.7.1993, and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.1993. Certain disputes were referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and a settlement was arrived at in the course of reconciliation on 2.9.1993 but the suspension of the petitioner continued.

2. The petitioner received an office order dated 11.11.1993 for conducting an enquiry on the charge-sheet dated 6.8.1993. The enquiry was not concluded and the petitioner was under suspension when the petitioner filed CW 3489/99. In terms of the order dated 28.5.1999, it was noted that the case of the petitioner was under process and the suspension was liable to be withdrawn within two weeks. In view thereof the petition was dismissed as infructuous. Further direction was also passed "however, it is made clear that if the suspension is not revoked the petitioner will be at liberty to revive the petition".

3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

(i)       to declare that suspension of petitioner was arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
 

(ii)     to quash the order of suspension dated 31.7.1993 (Annexure P11) from all its effects and further effects and to pay all consequential benefits for the period of suspension;
 

(iii)    to direct the respondent No. 1 to recover the loss suffered by the 'State' from the salaries of officers of respondent No. 2 who were responsible for arbitrary, illegal and unjust suspension of the petitioner;
 

(iv)     to set aside the charge-sheets dated 6.8.1993 and 27.8.1994 and orders dated. 9/10.6.1999 read with order dated 1/28.9.1999 inflicting the punishment of censure and withholding on one increment without cumulative effect being arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and void;
 

(v)      to pay the exemplary costs/damages as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court for violation of fundamental rights under Articles,14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for affecting disability and distress'for an indefinite period thereby jeopardising life and liberty." 
 

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner's suspension was reroked on 9.6.1999. Further the impugned orders dated 9/10th June,1999 were passed imposing the punishment of censure and with-holding of one increment in respect of the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.1999. The writ petition has been filed on 1.6.2001 after a lapse of almost two years.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the orders passed on 28.5.1999, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach this Court in respect of any grievance of his suspension. I am unable to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only liberty granted in terms of the order dated 28.5.1999 was liberty to revive the petition in case suspension was not revoked within two weeks as stated on behalf of the respondents and recorded in the said order.

6. A reading of the reliefs as claimed for in the writ petition would show that in view of the revocation of the suspension relief Nos. 1 and 2 have become infructuous. In case the petitioner was desirous of claiming any benefits for the period of suspension, it was open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the relief of payment of the consequential benefits for the period of suspension was also raised in CW 3489/99. The order dated 28.5.1999 thus more so comes in the way of the petitioner because no relief was granted in this behalf to the petitioner and the only liberty granted was in case the suspension was not revoked. Thus no orders are called for on these reliefs.

7. Reliefs have also been sought in respect of exemplary costs/damages for the period of suspension and for losses alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner. It may be noted that the charges against the petitioner were proved and by the very nature of the reliefs claimed the same are not maintainable in the present writ petition,

8. The last aspect claimed in the prayers is to set aside the orders passed on 9/10th June, 1999 and the appellate order dated 28.9.1999. The petitioner being a workman did not seek his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has now filed this petition after a lapse of almost two years seeking to impugn the same.

9. In the considered view the grievance against the said order would suffer from culpable delays and laches and the petitioner would not be entitled to any reliefs in the petition.

10. In view of the aforesaid position, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

C.M. 6874 of 2001 :

Dismissed.