Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 March, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245



CWP No.17708 of 2020                         -1-               2024:PHHC:036245

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
238
                                         *****

CWP No.17708 of 2020 Date of Decision : 13.3.2024

Ashok Kumar ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Hardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Daksh Attri, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of

certiorari quashing the order of punishment dated 16.11.2010, Annexure

P-9, passed by the Director, Haryana Board of School Education, Bhiwani

(for short 'the Board'), whereby the petitioner has been awarded

punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service'; the order in appeal

dated 23.5.2011, Annexure P-10, whereby the punishment was upheld;

and the order dated 22.2.2012, Annexure P-11, passed by the third

respondent/Chairman of the Board, whereby petitioner's request to

reconsider the decision taken in appeal was declined.

2. The petitioner was working as Assistant in Accounts Branch in

the Board, when a complaint was made against him to the police

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245

CWP No.17708 of 2020 -2- 2024:PHHC:036245

regarding manipulation in the awards/marks lists of three hundred

seventeen candidates in English subject, belonging to S. R. Memorial

Senior Secondary School. It was alleged that the School Principal, in

connivance with some officials/employees of the Board, got the

awards/mark lists manipulated. This led to registration of a criminal case,

FIR No.189 dated 24.10.2003 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471

IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani.

2.1. Later, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the

Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short

'the Rules') dated 9.1.2004 for the misconduct. After considering his

reply to the same, a regular disciplinary enquiry was instituted to enquire

into the allegations. The petitioner was served notice to join the enquiry

on 16 and 28 June, 2005. He, however, refused to do so, and requested the

proceedings to be adjourned to await outcome of the criminal trial. The

request was not accepted, and the enquiry continued. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his report, Annexure P-6, concurring with the findings of a

five-member preliminary enquiry committee headed by the then Deputy

Secretary, Exams. On that basis, it was concluded that charges against the

petitioner stood proved.

2.2. Based on the disciplinary enquiry report, a show cause notice

for the proposed punishment of 'dismissal from service' was issued to the

petitioner which was replied to by him, and he was personally heard by

the punishing authority as well. Looking into the facts of the case and

taking into account findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner was

awarded punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service'. His appeal

against the order of punishment was dismissed by the Board vide order

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245

CWP No.17708 of 2020 -3- 2024:PHHC:036245

dated 23.5.2011.

2.3. It has also come on record that the petitioner was acquitted in

the criminal trial vide judgment dated 22.5.2010, Annexure P-8, by giving

benefit of doubt. His request for reconsideration of the appellate order was

declined by the third respondent vide order dated 22.2.2012, but he filed

the instant petition after more than eight years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a similarly

placed employee, who was charge-sheeted alongwith the petitioner for the

same misconduct, has been reinstated in service vide order dated

22.2.2012, by reconsidering decision of the Appellate authority/Board;

whereas, the petitioner's request for reconsideration has been declined. He

is also entitled to reinstatement on grounds of parity. It is also contended

that disciplinary enquiry was conducted ex-parte, wherein the Enquiry

Officer only concurred with the findings recorded by a fact-finding

committee which is not sustainable. It is further contended that after the

petitioner's acquittal in criminal trial, there is no basis to sustain the order

of punishment, as it is based upon the same act/misconduct.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Board contends

that the petition itself is not maintainable as it has been filed after

inordinate delay of more than eight years, and there is no explanation for

the same. Merely because the petitioner suffered from paralysis, is no

ground to entertain the petition after such a long delay. It is further

contended that he was rightly awarded the punishment for the serious

misconduct in manipulating the awards/marks lists of students, which

stands duly proved on record during a preliminary enquiry. His case is not

similar to that of the other employee, who was reinstated in service. The

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245

CWP No.17708 of 2020 -4- 2024:PHHC:036245

charges proved against the petitioner are grave and serious, and no

employer can ignore the same. Besides, the acquittal in criminal trial also

cannot be a ground for setting-aside the order of punishment, since the

petitioner has not been acquitted on merits; he was only given benefit of

doubt.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been

considered.

6. Maintainability of the petition is to be decided first.

Concededly, the petition has been filed after delay of more than eight

years from the date the petitioner's representation for reconsidering the

order in appeal was declined, vide impugned order dated 22.2.2012. There

is no explanation for such a long delay. The only ground put forth is that

he is suffering from paralysis, and was not able to approach the Court

earlier on that account. However, the medical record, Annexure P-14,

regarding the petitioner's physical condition is dated 1.5.2018. There is

nothing on record to establish that he was paralytic at the time of passing

of the impugned orders. Besides, filing of repeated appeals against the

Chairman's order declining to reconsider the order of punishment,

provides no justification for the delay. There is no provision under the

Rules, nor has any been pointed out which entitled the petitioner to file

such an appeal against the order of Appellate Authority. Seventh such

appeal preferred by him was 'filed', vide impugned order dated

17.10.2017. This cannot extend the period of limitation for the petitioner;

rather, it shows he was aware of the need to challenge the impugned

orders and was capable of doing so as well. But chose not to approach this

Court and remained contended with approaching the Board for the same

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245

CWP No.17708 of 2020 -5- 2024:PHHC:036245

relief time and again. Therefore, there is no escape from concluding that

the petition suffers from delay and latches, and this Court is not inclined

to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain such a stale claim.

7. Law in this regard is well settled that the belated claim should

not be entertained by a writ court without adequate explanation.

Reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment in

State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others, (2015) 15 SCC

602. Relevant paragraphs of the same read as under:

23. Recently in Chennai Metropolitam Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, it has been ruled thus : (SCC p.117, para 16) "....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 scrutinize whether the list 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."

24. and 25. xxx xxx xxx

26. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036245

CWP No.17708 of 2020 -6- 2024:PHHC:036245

remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court.

27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim 'Deo gratias"-"thanks to God".

8. Since the petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay

and laches, as discussed hereinabove, considering other arguments

advanced by the learned counsel will only be an academic exercise which

need not be undertaken.