Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5870 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brijbhan Singh Respondent :- The Appellate Authority/Dy. General Manager,Central Bank Of India, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Vishnu Pratap
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on certain charges of misconduct. A detailed enquiry was conducted, whereafter the disciplinary authority upon being satisfied with the report of the enquiry officer, as per which the charges stood proved against the petitioner, proceeded to pass an order discharging the petitioner from services with superannuation benefits, i.e. pension and provident fund with gratuity as would be otherwise due under the rules or regulation without disqualification from future employment. This order has been affirmed in appeal. The appellate order in the matter was passed on 21.10.2014. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner is before this Court.
Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the Bank raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of latches. It is contended that though petitioner was associated with the enquiry proceedings and also at the stage of appeal, yet he has opted not to challenge the orders within a reasonable period of time and filing of the writ petition, after about five years, is not liable to be entertained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that petitioner was suffering from various diseases. Except to make a bald averment in para paragraph 42 of the writ petition, there is no other material to substantiate such a plea. Perusal of the record otherwise shows that disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and enquiry report was submitted. Copy of the enquiry report alongwith show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner. Procedure as was contemplated under the relevant tripartite agreement has been followed.
Considering the fact that petitioner was a compassionate appointee, a decision has been taken to maintain the superannuation benefits which are otherwise admissible to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, particularly when the delay of almost five years is not explained in any manner.
In view of the observation aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Ranjeet Sahu