Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 October, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.7362 of 2011
& CM No. 16691/2011
Date of Decision: 05.10.2011
Jai Prakash ...... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashutosh Bhattacharjee,
Advocate
versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order
dated 8th November, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („the Tribunal‟ for short)
dismissing the O.A. No. 2053/2007 and M.A. No. 2056/2007 filed by
the petitioner, Jai Prakash, inter alia, on the ground that the
application was delayed by 3365 days. The petitioner was
dismissed from service in the year 2000, and had approached the
tribunal in 2007. It was held that the delay of 7 years was too long
a period for a civil servant to agitate a cause, if any. It was further
held that the petitioner had failed to furnish satisfactory proof to
show that he was sick so as to disable him to resort to legal
remedies. The tribunal, looking at the nature of the allegations
mentioned in the order of dismissal, recorded that the petitioner
might have been embarrassed because of his conduct but with
passage of time, the petitioner had emboldened himself to belatedly
agitate his claim.
2. The order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 2nd
November, 2000 reads as under:
"Whereas, Shri Jayaprakash TGT (Hindi)
KV Donimalai has been primafacie found guilty
of involving in homosexual activities with
students of the Vidyalaya.
Whereas, the undersigned is satisfied from
the summary inquiry that the said Shri
Jayaprakash is guilty of Moral Turpitude
involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral
sexual behaviour towards the students and that
Shri Jayaprakash did not cooperate with the
inquiry by staying on unauthorized leave.
And whereas, the undersigned is further
satisfied that the procedure of CCS(CCA) Rules,
1965 to hold regular inquiry is not expedient in
this case as the same may cause serious
embarrassment to the students and their
parents.
The evidence on record establishes the
guilt of the teacher and hence the continuance
of the teacher in an educational institution is
prejudicial to the interest of the students as well
as the institution.
Now, therefore, the undersigned, in the
capacity of the Commissioner, KVS in exercise
of the powers under Article 81(b) of the
Education Code for KVs hereby terminates the
service of Shri Jayaprakash TGT (Hindi), KV
Donnimalai, with immediate effect.
Shri Jayaprakash, TGT (Hindi) will be paid
pay and allowances for one or three months as
the case may be as admissible under the rules."
3. Before the tribunal, the petitioner filed an application for
condonation of delay of 3365 days. The ground for condonation as
stated in the application reads as under:
"1. That Limitation period as per Section 21 of
Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 has though
expired due to the wrong Advice of Advocate of
Allahabad (H.C) Advocate and also by the laches
of petitioner. Petitioner has moved the Chief
Commissioner for person with disabilities,
sarojini House 6, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi
- 110001 for reinstatement of service and
payment of arrears of salary, who has been
replied vide letter dated 20.7.2006 and
9.8.2007 which is marked as Annexure P-2.
Petitioner was also medically unfit to attend the
Tribunal in time. But now petitioner is medically
fit in all respect to attend court and does his
duty in the school. Hence the delay if any be
condoned."
4. In the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner did not give the
name of the Advocate and/or file a copy of the legal advice
furnished to him. However, in the pleadings in the present writ
petition, the petitioner has made several allegations against one
Hasan Ahmad, Advocate, and has stated that the said Hasan
Ahmad had informed him that he had filed O.A. No. 671/2001
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench at
Allahabad and subsequently, he came to know that the said O.A. in
fact was filed by one Om Prakash Yadav. These allegations made in
the writ petition for the first time were absent and were not
mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed before
the tribunal. As noticed above, what was stated in the application
for condonation of delay was that a wrong advice was given by an
Advocate, which is different from stating that the Advocate had
informed the petitioner that he had filed a petition though no such
petition had been filed before the Tribunal.
5. The present writ petition was filed on or about
10.07.2008 but was returned under office objections. The office
objections have been removed after 931 days. It is stated in the
application that the petitioner had lost records and these could be
reconstructed in the first week of August, 2011. It may be relevant
to state that the petitioner, in paragraph 3.15 of the petition, has
stated that he has filed the entire records, which were filed before
the tribunal. Thus, there is contradiction in the statement made by
the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay in refilling
and the averments made in the writ petition itself.
6. Be that as it may, it is noticed that there has been a
substantial delay at each point of time on the part of the petitioner.
The reasons given for condonation of delay are entirely vague and
in fact contradictory. The tribunal has rightly recorded that the
petitioner, who was working as a teacher, might have been initially
embarrassed to approach the court in view of the allegations, but
after a gap of 7 years, he was emboldened to approach the tribunal.
This aspect has not been adverted to and answered by the
petitioner in the pleadings or before this Court during the course of
arguments. Rules of limitation are founded on public policy as
evidence and material dissipates and this prevents a fair and just
decision. Stale claims should not be allowed to be agitated and long
lapse of 7 years is indicative that the petitioner had accepted the
order of dismissal. Facts stated above and the resultant delay and
latches on the part of the petitioner do not justify exercise of
discretion in his favour.
7. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and
accordingly, the writ petition along with the application for
condonation of delay, in refiling are dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
OCTOBER 5, 2011
rd
