Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16325 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Chandra Sharma Respondent :- The Prathama Bank And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Bhushan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- P.K.Singhal
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 2 November 2015 passed in departmental proceedings by which he has been reduced to the lowest scale of pay. The other impugned order dated 6 February 2016 is the appellate order by which the departmental appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.
A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is grossly barred by laches.
The laches have been sought to be explained in paragraph 28 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has stated that he could not file the petition earlier due to non availability of documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings and that neither the charge-sheet nor the enqiry report was ever served upon him.
These grounds do not suffice for condonation of delay. Even if the enquiry proceedings were ex-parte and by the order dated 2 November 2015, the penalty had been imposed upon the petitioner against which he also filed a departmental appeal and when he received the copy of the disciplinary proceedings order, he was well aware of the orders and he could have applied to or approached the department for providing him the copies of the charge-sheet or enquiry report or any other document on which he could rely upon for purpose of the enquiry. It has not been disclosed as to what prevented the petitioner at that stage from approaching the High Court for a direction to the respondents to give him/provide copies of the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet or the enquiry report. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 6 February 2016. After 6 February 2016, what was the petitioner doing till date has not been explained and, therefore, the mere fact that documents relating to the departmental proceedings were not provided to him is not a good ground for condonation of delay.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 SK