Rajasthan High Court
Rameshwar Lal vs U O I And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:13059) on 15 March, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:13059]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6721/2016
Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Nanak Chand (Sepoy, since deceased)
through his leal representative wife Smt. Mohini Devi W/o Late
Shir Rameshwar Lal, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Chachiwad
Bara, District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Inspector General of Police, Sector-III, C.R.P.F. R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ajmer.
4. The Commandant, 33 Battalion, CRPF, Aizwal (Mizoram).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Himanshi Meena for
Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
15/03/2024
1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 17.05.1983, passed by the Office of the Dy. Inspector
General of Police, C.R.P.F., Jaipur whereby the appeal of the
petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of
Constable in the C.R.P.F. on 01.02.1971. He was placed under
suspension vide order dated 19.08.1982 under Rule 27(A) of the
C.R.P.F. Rules 1955 read with Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act
1949. He was charge-sheeted vide order dated 13.10.1982.
(Downloaded on 21/03/2024 at 08:45:45 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13059] (2 of 3) [CW-6721/2016]
3. The Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into charges
against the petitioner which included indiscipline and indulging in
gambling. The Inquiry Officer found the charges to be proved and
disciplinary authority, vide order dated 07.03.1983, dismissed the
petitioner from services. Against the order of dismissal from
services the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent
authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.05.1983.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Against the order dated 17.05.1983, whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition in the year 2016 that is after about twenty nine
years.
6. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from
services and so also the order dated 17.05.1983 of rejection of the
appeal filed by him, now in the year 2016 after 29 years, there is
no satisfactory explanation whatsoever as to why it took the
petitioner over about 3 decades in challenging the action of the
respondents including the order of dismissal and rejection of
appeal.
7. It is well-settled law that for the exercise of extraordinary
writ jurisdiction, the petitioner has to approach the Court promptly
and within reasonable time and any undue delay would stand in
his way for claiming any discretionary relief. Reference may be
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murli Babu [(2014) 4 SCC 108] wherein it
was observed that the writ petition should not have been
[2024:RJ-JP:13059] (3 of 3) [CW-6721/2016]
entertained by the High Court as there was delay of four years in
filing the writ petition.
8. In a writ petition filed by one of the delinquent employee
who was charge-sheeted along with the petitioner and was
dismissed from services, this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 11382/2014 Bhoor Mal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
decided on 20.09.2016, after considering the verdict of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. (supra), dismissed the
writ petition as same was filed with undue delay.
9. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
10. Since the main petition has been dismissed, all other
pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
