Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12285 of 2021 Petitioner :- Purshottam Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjeet Singh,Indra Sen Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed two orders of 19.04.2000; firstly by which the leave without pay was allowed and by second order, petitioner was dismissed from service.
Challenging the order of dismissal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the Government Order dated 06.06.2001, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against an employee if the absence from duty is less than five years. It is further contended that no procedure as contemplated under the Police Regulations has been followed in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner, and as such, the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in law.
The order which impugned in the writ petition is of year 2000. The Stamp Reporter has reported the delay of about 7709 days in filing the writ petition.
According to petitioner, he has endeavoured to explain the delay in paragraph 57 of the writ petition, which is reproduced herein below:-
"57. That the petitioner a low paid government servant having no knowledge and awareness of remedy available to him had promptly in May 2000 visited to a senior Advocate practising in this Hon'ble Court, sought his legal advice and handed over the papers to him for seeking appropriate remedy and paid to him proper expenses and fee and he had assured the petitioner to initiate proceeding for remedy in accordance with law."
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a photocopy of receipt issued by Sri S.D.N. Singh, Advocate on 12.05.2000 to demonstrate that there was no deliberate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court as the petitioner had contacted his counsel and deposited fees and he was under bona fide impression that his counsel must have filed the writ petition.
Be that as it may, undisputedly, there is delay of about 21 years in filing the writ petition. If the petitioner had engaged some counsel immediately after the impugned order passed in the year 2000, then it was also the duty of the petitioner to enquire about the status of his case from his counsel. For the last 21 years, he did not enquire about his case.
There is no pleading in the writ petition that he has made any effort to enquire about the writ petition which he has instructed to file to his earlier counsel Sri S.D.N. Singh.
In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not convinced with the explanation tendered by the petitioner for inordinate delay of more than 21 years in approaching to this Court.
As there is an inordinate delay of more than 21 years, therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
This Court is not inclined to touch the merit of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Sattyarth