IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.24277 OF 2019 ( S-DIS) Between:
Mr. M.S. Muralidhar Aged about 49 years, S/o late M.R. Srinivas, No.183, 3rd Cross, Raghavendra Nagara, Mysuru – 11.
(By Sri.P.P. Hegde, Advocate) And:
1. The Chancellor University of Mysore And his Excellency, The Governor of Karnataka, Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Vice Chancellor And Disciplinary Authority, University of Mysore, Crawford Hall, Mysuru – 570 005.
…Petitioner 3. The Syndicate University of Mysore, By its Secretary and Its Registrar, University of Mysore, Crawford Hall, Mysuru – 570 005.
4. The Registrar University of Mysore, Crawford Hall, Mysore – 570 005. …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the disciplinary enquiry report dated 07.06.2000 in Case No.6/1999 passed by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner at Annexure-F and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of Disciplinary Enquiry Officer report dated 07.06.2000 in Case No.6/1999 (Annexure- F), order of Disciplinary Authority dated 20.09.2000 (Annexure-B) and order of Appellate Authority dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure-A).
2. The petitioner was facing parallel proceedings. The criminal proceedings is said to have been concluded whereas, in the disciplinary proceedings he has been dismissed from the service. Order of the Disciplinary Authority is dated 20.09.2000 whereas, the order of the Appellate Authority is dated 21.11.2011 and the present writ petition is filed on 07.06.2019. There is enormous delay for which the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the reasons for delay in approaching this Court at para 5 of the writ petition, which reads as under:
“5. After the dismissal of the appeal before the Hon’ble Chancellor the petitioner has been requesting various authorities to reconsider his request to reinstate him. Since the petitioner being jobless and without any source of income he could not take any steps to prefer writ before this Hon’ble Court immediately. However another co-employee Mr. Krishnamurthy whose appeal was also dismissed on 21.11.2011, has approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.5776/2012 challenging the dismissal of the appeal and this Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to grant interim order dated 24.01.2013 staying the impugned order. The copy of the interim order dated 24.01.2013 is produced herewith as Annexure-G. The said Writ petition is still pending consideration. The print out from the official website of High Court of Karnataka showing the latest stage of the said case is produced herewith as Annexure-H.”
3. On perusal of the records, it is evident that petitioner is a fence sitter who was waiting for a decision in the similar matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798 at para 13 and 14 held as under:-
“13. The High Court erred in placing absolute reliance on Dev Dutt and Sukhdev without noticing the fact situation of the respondents. In Union of India v. Bahadur Singh, it was observed: (Bahadur Singh case, SCC p.373, para9) “9. The courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. …”
14. A subsequent pronouncement by this Court could not enthuse a fresh lease of life, or furnish a fresh cause of action to what was otherwise clearly a dead and stale claim. In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, it was observed that: (SCC p.186, para 29) “29. …. Not for nothing, has it been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.”
4. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, delay and laches is required to be taken into consideration. That apart, another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006, it has been held that writ petition can be entertained with reference to the criteria at para 20, which reads as under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus: -
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
5. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned orders on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM