Shri Richpal Singh vs Delhi University And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1186 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1.Petitioner claimed to have cleared the High School examination conducted by the Board of High School Examination and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. He had submitted the same to the second respondent when he was employed as a laboratory attendant on 5/6.2.1981.

2. On 14.1.82 his services were confirmed. Report was received by the college that the marks-sheet submitted by the petitioner was a fabricated document. On 18.9.1987, following memorandum was issued to the petitioner:-

''MEMORANDUM

Shri Richpal Singh, is hereby informed that it has come to the notice of the undersigned that the High School pass certificate submitted by him is not genuine and has been found to be bogus. He is directed to explain, in writing, within one week's timehy his services should not be dispensed with. His reply should reach the undersigned latest by the 15th September, 1987.''

3. On 15.9.1987, petitioner denied the allegation against him. He reiterated that the certificate submitted by him was genuine.

4.He submitted fresh photo-copies of a certificate obtained by him from the Principal of the school where he had studied and from which school he had taken the examination. Certificate dated 14.9.1987 was issued by Mihir Bhoj Inter College, Dabri, U.P.

As per the certificate, Principal of the school certified that petitioner was a student of the school. He took High School examination in the year 1975. He was declared successful in 3rd division. Certificate aforesaid sent by the school was accompaned by a statement of marks-sheet purportedly issued by the Secretary of the U.P. Madhyamic Shiksha Board, Allahabad. It showed that petitioner was issued roll No.77899. Against said roll number, petitioner took the exam and obtained 221 marks out of aaximum of 500.

5.Respondent No.2 forwarded the said certificate sent by the petitioner Along with the accompanying marks-sheet which the petitioner claimed was re-verified by his school, to the Secretary, Board of High School and College, Intermediate Education, Allahabad under cover of letter dated 8.3.1988. On 1.8.1988, the said Board wrote back to respondent No.2 informing that the marks-sheet sent was forged.

6. Services of the petitioner were terminated vide memorandum dated 19.8.1988. It reads as under:-

''Shri Richhpal Singh, Junior Laboratory Assistant in the department of Chemistry of this College, is hereby informed that on the basis of proof received from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, it has been establi hed that he had secured employment as laboratory Attendant, in the Department of Chemistry, on the basis of false and fabricated documents of his educational qualifications.

Under the circumstances, the services of Shri Richhpal Singh, JLA in the Department of Chemistry are therefore, stand terminated with effect from the afternoon of 10th August, 1988.''

7. FIR was lodged. Petitioner was prosecuted of having committed an offence under Section 420/471 IPC. At the end of the trial, giving benefit of doubt, petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court vide judgment and order dated 17.9.1999.

8.Order of acquittal would reveal that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the investigating officer did not investigate the matter at the level of Mihir Bhoj Inter-College, for it was said institute which had issued the marks-sheet to the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that if there was a forgery, person concerned from Mihir Bhoj Inter College should have been made an accused.

9. On being acquitted by the Criminal Court, petitioner made a representation to the Chairman of Respondent No.2 on 1.11.1999 drawing his attention to the acquittal. Petitioner sought reinstatement.

10. Letter dated 1.11.1999 reads as under:-

''To,

The Chairman,

Maitreyi College,

Bapu Dham, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi.

Sir,

This is to inform you that I was dismissed from the service by the College on the false ground that I have procured the service by submitting forge and fabricated documents and a case was registered against me on the basis of the complaint made by the Prncipal of this college. I have been acquitted by the Hon'ble Court as the prosecution case was found to be false. A true copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court is enclosed herewith.

You are, therefore, requested that I be reinstated forthwith.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Dated: 1.11.1999 RICHPAL SINGH

59A, Pocket C-1,

Mayur Vihar,

Phase-III, Delhi.''

11.Nothing happened. Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.2053/2000. In the said petition, petitioner stated that on 21.9.1988 he had preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the College against his dismissal. He stated that the appeal was not decided. Petitioner further stated that his representation dated 1.11.1999 was not decided.

12. On 2.5.2000, writ petition aforesaid was disposed of as under:-

''02-5-2000

Present: Mr.P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhisht Kumar for the petitioner.

Mr.Anurag Mathur for counsel for respondent No.1/Delhi University.

C.W. 2052/2000

Heard.

In para 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 21.9.1988 praying for reinstatement. In service with continuity of service and back wages and that the said appeal has remained undispsed of by respondent No.2 till to date.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's representation dated 1.11.1999, copy whereof is Annexure P-4 at page 23 is also not decided by the respondents.

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to decide the appeal, stated in para 6 of the petition and the representation Annexure P-4 at page 23, if so far not decided, within three months from today in accordance with law.

With the above direction to respondents 2 and 3, this writ petition is disposed of.

This order be communicated to respondents 2 and 3.''

13. On 26.7.2000, petitioner was served with the following order:-

''Shri Richpal,

59A, Pocket 'C'-1,

Mayur Vihar Phase-III,

Delhi.

Subject: CWP No.2052/2000 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and representation of Shri Richpal Singh dated 01-11-1999.

Dear Mr.Singh,

Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 02-05-2000 in CWP No.2052/2000 to decide your appeal dated nil against the order of termination dated 10-08-1988 and representation dated 01-11-1999, we have thoroughly exained and considered your said representation. Our reply is as follows:-

1.That the Board of High School Examination and Intermediate Education Allahabad (U.P.) is responsible for issuing the degree certificate in your case. We made inquiries with the Board of high School Examination and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (U.P.) in connection with your result. The Board of High School Examination and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (U.P.) vide its letter dated 22-08-1987 intimated to us that you have failed in the High School Examination. Accordingly, it became obvious tat you have submitted a bogus certificate at the time of your appointment in the College.

2.That your mark sheets has been sent to the Secretary, Board of High School Examination and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (U.P.) vide letter dated 08-03-1998 for verification. The Board vide letter dated 01-08-1988 informed that the mark-sheet submitted was forged.

3.That fact that you have acquitted in a criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for reinstatement. It is stated that a valid termination order has been passed against you by an independent Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the rules and regulations of the College and has been taken after giving full opportunity to represent your case. The procedure adopted therein for taking disciplinary action against you is in conformity with the established principle of natural justice. Moreover, the Discplinary Committee is not bound by the findings of the criminal court. A decision as regards your termination has been taken when it was found that your had never passed the examination and produced a bogus certificate.

For the reasons given above, it has been decided that you cannot be reinstated and your appeal dated nil against the order of termination dated 10-08-1998 and representation dated 01-11-1999 has been accordingly rejected.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Mrs.S. Bhalla)

Principal''

14. Present petition challenges order dated 26.7.2000 as also the dismissal from service.

15.Challenge to the dismissal is on one ground. Ground being that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. The College conducted an enquiry at the back of the petitioner, gathered material and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.

16.Respondents, realizing the weakness of their case on merits, challenged the writ petition on ground of delay and laches. It was stated that dismissal was effected in the year 1988. It was too late to question the same by filing a petition in the year 2000 or in the year 2001. Counsel for the petitioner sought to blunt the challenge predicated on delay and laches by relying upon order dated 2.5.2000 passed in the earlier writ petition. Counsel contended that petitioner's appeal filed on 21.9.1988 as not disposed of and, therefore, there was no question of delay and laches. Argument was that vide order dated 2.5.2000, directions were issued to decide appeal filed by the petitioner. Appeal was disposed of by the order dated 26.7.2000. Present pettion was filed on 1.10.2001. Accordingly it was stated that the writ petition does not suffer from delay and laches.

17. Second defense taken in an additional affidavit is that petitioner had filed a suit challenging his dismissal which was dismissed in default and therefore, on the same cause writ petition was not maintainable.

18.I may note that in the present petition, there is a pleading to the effect that on 21.9.1988 petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order terminating his service, however, copy thereof has not been placed on record. None was shown during arguments. It is true that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he had made a reference to an appeal being filed on 21.9.1988, but he had also made a grievance that his representation dated 1.11.1999 was not disposed of. Representation dat d 1.11.1999 is post-acquittal. While disposing of the earlier writ petition this court had directed petitioner's appeal as well as representation dated 1.11.1999 to be disposed of.

19.One fact is relevant and needs to be noted. WP(C) No.2052/2000 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on the very first day when it was listed. Notice was not even issued to the college. Order dated 2.5.2000 disposing of the writ petition shows that the court treated all averments to be correct.

20. Impugned order dated 26.7.2000 would reveal that it disposes of petitioner's representation dated 1.11.1999. There is no reference to any appeal filed by the petitioner.

21.I would deal with issue of delay in two separate aspects. If petitioner's appeal filed on 21.9.1988 was not decided, there was no justification for the petitioner to keep silent for 12 years. For the first time, the petitioner asserted of having filed an appeal when WP(C) No.2052/2000 was filed. In the said writ petition, petitioner made an alternative grievance that his representation dated 1.11.1999 was also not disposed of. Right to reinstatement was claimed under representation dated 1.11.199 flowing from petitioner's acquittal.

22.This court disposed of writ petition filed by the petitioner without adjudicating whether at all an appeal was filed and if filed, could petitioner predicate a claim that the appeal be disposed of after 12 years. Order dated 2.5.2000 was passed. The order required petitioner's appeal dated 21.9.1988 as well as representation dated 1.11.1999 to be disposed of. Impugned order, as noted above disposes of only the representation dated 1.11.1999. The alleged appeal is yet to see the light of the day. I petitioner was aggrieved that his appeal was not disposed of, he ought to have filed a writ petition within a reasonable time. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to lay a claim under the alleged appeal. Here, one more admitted fact be noted hich is of relevance. Petitioner had admittedly filed a suit in the court of Senior Sub-Judge on 17.7.1989. Relief prayed was:-

''It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the order dated 19.8.1988 of the defendants terminating the services of the plaintiff illegal be declared to be quashed.''

23. Said suit was dismissed in default.

24.The second reason for delay and laches is that petitioner's acquittal in the criminal trial had no concern with the civil action taken for dismissal of service. Acquittal at the criminal trial on 17.9.1999 could not revive a defunct claim. Represent ation dated 1.11.1999 relied only on one fact, being petitioner's acquittal on the criminal trial on 17.9.1999.

25.Action of termination of service has to be challenged within reasonable dispatch. Third party rights creep in. College would have proceeded to fill up the resultant vacancy on permanent basis. Besides, one cannot sit at home to challenge a dismiss al and claim reinstatement with wages. None can benefit by doing no work. Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action where the earlier suit is abandoned. Order IX Rule 4 of the Coe of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to seek restoration of a suit which is dismissed in default or to bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. Effect of dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff in default would not entitle the plain iff to overcome the bar of limitation.

26. The writ petition is dismissed on the preliminary objection of delay and laches as well as its non-maintainability.

27. No costs.