Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Dave vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Hirdesh
1 WA-816-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 816 of 2024
SANJAY DAVE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Daya Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Deputy Solicitor General for
respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present intra-court appeal is filed under section 2(1) OF THE
MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA (KHAND
NYAYAPEETH KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM, 2005 being aggrieved by the
order dated 06.03.2024, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the termination order dated 30.11.2002 after departmental
enquiry has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year
1999. It is pleaded that he proceeded on leave. However, after the expiry of
leave, he did not join the duties on account of personal problem and illness.
A departmental inquiry was conducted, which was ex-parte and the services
2 WA-816-2024
of the petitioner was terminated.
The petition was filed after a delay of about 18 years. The counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner due to family and personal reasons
has gone in depression and suffered mental sickness and he could not recover
until 09.11.20211 and after recovery, he submitted a representation to allow
him to rejoin the services. He relied a doctor certificate filed at page 44 of
the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
documents relied by the counsel for the appellant at page 44 issued by
psychiatrist of District Hospital, Ratlam. We find that the said certificate
does not certify that the appellant is completely recovered and fit to join the
services as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, which is Central
Armed Police Force, which requires complete physical and mental fitness.
The petition was filed after a delay of more than 18 years. The learned
Single Judge after referring the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappanreported in (2006)
4 SCC 322, M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of T.N. Reported in (2007) 9
SCC 78, Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274, U.P.
Jal Nigam Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464, Jagdish Lal
Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538, NDMC Vs. Pan Singh
reported in (2007) 9 SCC 278, State of Orissa vy. Pyarimohan Amantaray
reported in (1977) 3 SCC 396, State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik
reported in (1976) 3 SCC 579, BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 374, Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K reported in (2009)
3 WA-816-2024
15 SCC 321, P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of T.N. reported in (1975) 1
SCC 152, of Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others
v. R.D. Valand reported in 1995 Supp (4) 593, State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv
Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179, C. Jacob v. Director
of Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, Union of India v.
M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, T.N. v. Seshachalam reported in
(2007) 10 SCC 137, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Chaman Rana reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 798 has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of
delay and latches.
We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge warranting interference by this court.
Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
