Kanusinh Pratapsinh Thakor vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5683 Guj

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/6586/2023                             ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

                                                                                 undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6586 of 2023

==========================================================
                        KANUSINH PRATAPSINH THAKOR
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS. NIRALI SARDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                              Date : 04/08/2023
                               ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed challenging the order of termination dated 20.11.2010, passed by the District Development Officer, Jamnagar, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated for the reasons stated therein, with effect from 28.10.2020.

2. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today

3. Brief facts, referred in the petition are as under:

3.1 The petitioner was appointed on fixed salary for a period of 5 years on the post of 'Panchayat-Sahayak' by an order dated 05.09.2007, and posted at Vasai Dwarka. Thereafter, on 28.10.2010, an FIR being C.R. No. I - 9 of 2010 was registered with the Jamnagar, ACB Police Station, District - Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6586/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

undefined

Act. Consequently, order dated 20.11.2010 of termination was passed, making effective from 28.10.2010. Aggrieved by this, present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. Jatin Yadav, learned advocate for the petitioner.

5. He submitted that the order of termination dated 20.11.2010, was passed without holding any departmental inquiry and without issuance of any show-cause notice and therefore, the order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He pointed out that trial in connection with the alleged offence was conducted, and the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Court of law by order dated 28.02.2013. Since the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him, he made a representation on 21.03.2013, seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Since no response was received, he made another representation dated 24.07.2014, followed by one more representation in the year 2019. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the petitioner was pursuing the cause diligently. In response to the representations made by the petitioner, a letter was addressed by Section Officer to District Development Officer, Jamnagar, requesting to consider the case, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal prosecution. He therefore submitted that appropriate directions may be issued. Learned advocate relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Bherabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.17083 of 2019, submitted that in the said case for the termination of the year 2008, the petitioner was reinstated in the year 2019.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent - State invited attention to the order

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6586/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

undefined

dated 20.11.2010 and submitted that the said order is challenged after delay of more than 12 years. The petitioner was appointed on a fixed salary for a period of five years and as per the terms of appointment order taking note of the incident, for which the petitioner was subjected to criminal prosecution, termination order was passed. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed. On the delay, she submitted that mere representation would not give him right to prefer this petition, at such a belated stage. Most importantly, the acquittal was granted to the petitioner by giving benefit of doubt. On the aspect of reliance placed by the petitioner on the communication dated 20.11.2019, she submitted that it is an internal communication. She therefore submitted that no interference is required at this stage, since the present petition is filed at a belated stage. She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.S. Balu and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 and submitted that this petition may be rejected.

7. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that the petitioner was terminated from service for the reasons stated therein by the order dated 20.11.2010. In the said order, the reason for termination and the terms of appointment, relying upon which the petitioner's service were terminated has been referred. Admittedly, for alleged incident, the petitioner was subjected to criminal prosecution, which has resulted into acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt by decision dated 28.02.2013. Factually, the order of termination dated 20.11.2010 was not challenged at that time and more so, no challenge was made even after order of acquittal dated 28.02.2013. Nothing came on record to justify the delay for which the petitioner had waited for these many years. Filing of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6586/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

undefined

petition after than 10 years , at this stage to grant relief of reinstatement as prayed for ignoring the delay, in the opinion of this Court is beyond the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu and Ors. (Supra), wherein it has been held as under: -

"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. The Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors., this Court held:

"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6586/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

undefined

made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut- off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."

7.1 In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014)4 SCC 108, it has been held as under :

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6586/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2023

undefined

fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

8. Further, the aspect of delay has not been considered in Govind Bherabhai Patel (Supra). In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the decision of this Court Govind Bherabhai Patel (Supra), would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.

9. In view of the above, the present petition is rejected. No order as to costs.

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) prk