Sh. Anand Singh Rathore S/O Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 611 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 799/2021

Sh. Anand Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh, Aged About 61
Years,    Residing   At    122/237,         Indra      Path,     Agarwal    Farm,
Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
         Rajasthan Police Headquarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
2.       Commissioner Of Police, (Erstwhile Inspector General Of
         Police, Jaipur Range-1St), Police Commissionerate, M.i.
         Road, Jaipur.
3.       Deputy      Commissioner                Of        Police,     (Erstwhile
         Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur-East), Gopalpura Bypass,
         Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Ms. Sobha Gupta with
                                Ms. Anuradha through VC
For Respondent(s)         :



      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                 Judgment

24/01/2022

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge an

order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

Writ Petition No.10158/2020. The appellant petitioner was an

employee of the police department of the State Government.

During the period between 2010-2011 he was served with as

many as 5 charge-sheets for departmental enquiry. These

proceedings resulted into imposition of various penalties. He filed

appeals and thereafter also reviews. These were dismissed. In the

(2 of 3) [SAW-799/2021]

writ petition the petitioner had challenged the orders passed by

the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authorities in

4 out of 5 cases. The learned Single Judge noticed that the

appeals were dismissed in the year 2015 whereas the writ petition

was filed in the year 2020. This petition was thus belated without

any explanation for such delay. The writ petition was dismissed

only on this ground. Against this order the petitioner has filed this

appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having

perused the documents on record we see no reason to interfere.

Firstly we wonder how the petitioner was allowed to challenge four

different orders of penalty arising out of separate departmental

proceedings in one single petition. Be that as it may, the record

shows that such proceedings terminated at the belated stage in

the year 2015. Two review petitions were also filed by the

petitioner which were dismissed in the year 2018 on the ground of

delay. The writ petition was filed in the year 2020. The learned

Single Judge was therefore perfectly justified in not entertaining

the petition and dismissing it on the ground of delay and laches.

Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that

there is no fixed period of limitation for filing the writ petition and

considering that the petitioner has strong case on merits his

petition should have been entertained. She further submitted that

the penalties were utilized for denying the benefit of second ACP

to the petitioner. It was therefore that the petitioner considered

challenging such penalties by filing writ petition. These

contentions cannot be accepted. Before the petitioner clears the

initial threshold of persuading us that the writ petition was filed

within reasonable period; such reasonable period has to be seen in

(3 of 3) [SAW-799/2021]

facts of each case; would the Court look into the merits. When we

find that without any explanation whatsoever to approach the High

Court by the petitioner nearly five years after the cause of action

arisen, the petition was correctly treated as belated by the learned

Single Judge. It is well settled that in service jurisprudence while

considering a person for promotion including for grant of the

benefit of ACP, suitability of the employee would be judged on the

basis of his service record. The petitioner cannot raise the ground

that since he was denied the benefit of ACP on the basis of

penalties reflected in his service record, he had occasion to

challenge the penalties.

Learned counsel for the appellant clarified that in the writ

petition one of the penalties has not been challenged nor has the

petitioner challenged the action of the department not granting

him the benefit of ACP. Since these issues are not under

challenge, we have not commented on the same.

With this clarification the appeal is dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                                (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   KAMLESH KUMAR/32









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)