Jharkhand High Court

Farida Khatoon @ Tamnna vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2021

                                         1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 1239 of 2011
     Farida Khatoon @ Tamnna                   ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand.
    2. The Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affair, Government of
       Jharkhand, Ranchi.
    3. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand,
       Ranchi.
    4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kholhan Region,
       Chaibasa, Jharkhand.
    5. The     Superintendent    of   Police,     East    Singhbhum
       Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
    6. Officer-in-Charge of Dhalbhumgarh Police Station, East
       Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Post Office and Police Station-
       Dhalbhumgarh, District-Jamshedpur.
                                              .....    Respondents
                                 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I

---------

12/Dated: 5th July, 2021 Heard through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting

aside the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the respondent

No.5; whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner

was dismissed and also the appellate order dated

24.08.2004 passed by the respondent No.4 and order dated

28.01.2006 passed by respondent No.3; whereby the appeal

and memorial preferred by the deceased-husband of the

petitioner was also rejected.

3. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the order of termination has been

passed without following principles of natural justice,

inasmuch as, no notice was ever served to this petitioner.

He further submits that neither any show cause notice nor

the enquiry report was ever served to the petitioner's

husband and as such the order suffers from procedural

irregularity.

Learned counsel further submits that even

admitting the case to be true then also the quantum of

punishment is highly disproportionate to the offence; as

such the respondent-authorities should look into the

matter and pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment.

Learned counsel lastly submits that the

respondents with malicious motive sent the notices at the

home town though the husband of the petitioner was

posted at Jamshedpur at the time of suspension; as such

on the ground of procedural irregularity and quantum of

punishment the impugned order of punishment as well as

the subsequent orders should be quashed and the case

may be remitted back to the respondents for passing a

fresh order.

4. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the

respondent-State opposes the prayer of the petitioner on

the ground of delay and laches. He contended that husband

of petitioner was terminated vide order dated 31.05.2004

and thereafter he preferred appeal which was also

dismissed and the memorial filed by the petitioner was also

dismissed way back on 28.01.2006; however, this case has

been filed in the month of March, 2011 and there is no

explanation given in the entire pleadings as to why the

delinquent employee did not approach this Court during his

lifetime and after his death in the year, 2009, the present

petitioner approached this Court i.e. after a lapse of more

than five year of the last impugned order and one year after

the death of the deceased employee which certainly appears

to be an afterthought.

Mr. Saboo on the question of procedural

irregularity submits that during course of departmental

proceeding the delinquent employee did not appear before

the disciplinary authority even after repeated intimation. He

further draws attention of this Court towards several

annexure which transpires that the notices were served at

the native place of the deceased employee and Annexure-A

to the supplementary counter-affidavit clearly transpires

that he has received the notice and duly signed in the

acknowledgment.

He further submits that even though the

husband of the petitioner did not appeared, but the

disciplinary authorities has taken full caution and recorded

the statement of witnesses and passed the impugned order.

In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to this

petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and after going through the documents annexed and the

averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that

the husband of the petitioner was terminated for the charge

of indiscipline, dereliction of duty and non-compliance of

the order of the superior. The delinquent was further

charged of being in drunken condition and used to drink

the wine in temple premises due to which there was

probability of escalation of communal tension.

From record it transpires that during course of

departmental proceeding the husband of the petitioner did

not appear though he received notice issued by the

Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur vide Memo No. 6099

dated 24.10.2003 and inspite of receiving the same, the

delinquent did not file any clarification/defence in the

departmental proceeding.

It further transpires from record that the

conducting officer had called the Police Inspector, Sidhgora

Circle who enquired into the criminal case and given his

opinion vide Memo No. 1301/Sidgora dated 29.09.2003 and

the conducting officer has duly recorded the statement of

the concerned witnesses and came to conclusion that the

husband of the petitioner was taking wine inside the temple

and for this reason; tension arose but somehow subsided.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that only two witnesses were examined and no

independent witness has been examined has no legs to

stand in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the conducting officer

has duly examined the witnesses and had the delinquent

participated in the departmental proceeding he could have

easily cross-examined; but he choose to avoid the entire

enquiry proceedings even after acknowledging the notice to

participate.

At the cost of repetition notices were duly

served to the petitioner, but not even once he participated

in the departmental proceeding rather only after

termination he filed appeal and memorial.

7. At this stage it is relevant to mention here

that the memorial preferred by the delinquent employee

was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2006; however he did

not choose to challenge the said order. In other words the

order of termination attains finality. However, after the

death of the deceased employee in the year'2009; his widow

preferred this application that too after more than a year of

his death. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage

Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in

(2014) 4 SCC 108 at paragraph no. 16 has held that the

doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed

aside. Para-16 of the judgment is quoted herein below:-

"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 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."

This is a fit case where the delay cannot be

ignored because the delinquent was terminated in the year

2004 and even his appeal was dismissed in the year 2004,

thereafter he preferred memorial which was also dismissed

in the month of January 2006 and the instant writ

application has been preferred by his widow in the year

March, 2011, so on this score alone the instant writ

application deserves to be dismissed.

8. Even otherwise, Annexure-B to the

supplementary counter-affidavit clearly transpires that the

petitioner has received notice of departmental proceeding;

however, he chooses not to participate in the said