Dhani Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3455 HP

                                            1



             HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                C.W.P. No. 2339 of 2021

                                                Date of decision: 03.08.2021




                                                                                 .

    Dhani Ram                                                            ...Petitioner

                                      Versus





    State of H.P. and others                      ...Respondents
    ____________________________________________________
    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice



    Whether approved for reporting1 :
                         r                  to
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

    For the Petitioner(s):            Mr. Dalip Singh Kaith, Advocate.

    For the Respondents:              Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
                                      with Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Vikas


                                      Rathore Ms.Ritta Goswami, Additional
                                      Advocates General and Ms. Seema
                                      Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.




                         Through Video Conference
    ____________________________________________________





    Jyotsna Rewal Dua,J.

Vide impugned order dated 29.05.1998, the Deputy

Commissioner, District Mandi, imposed upon the petitioner

penalty of "reduction to the lower time scale of peon for a period

of five years at the initial start of peon's post and that he will not

earn annual increments during this period of reduction. In case

Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

his work and conduct is found satisfactory after the said period of

five years, he be restored to the same post of Process Server, but

will not be entitled to regain his original seniority of Process

.

Server."

2. The order was passed after completing the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on

30.01.1995. The penalty imposed vide impugned order stands

implemented. It is 23 years later that the petitioner has chosen to

file instant petition assailing the order dated 29.05.1998. The

petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches which have not

been explained by the petitioner at all.

Finding no merit, the instant petition is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( Ravi Malimath ) Acting Chief Justice

3rd August, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge