Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1059 of 1998 Appellant :- Union Of India And Another Respondent :- Sushil Kuamr Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Kuamr,Rakesh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Pathik,U.N.Sharma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Rajesh Pathik and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing for appellant sought time stating that he has not prepared the matter.
3. Record shows that it is an old appeal of 1998 and on four occasions it was dismissed for want of prosecution. Earlier on 19.09.2007, it was dismissed for want of prosecution and restored on 24.07.2009, dismissed on 27.11.2009 and restored on 09.04.2010; dismissed on 07.10.2010 and restored on 01.12.2010 and lastly dismissed on 17.01.2012 and restored on 21.03.2018. It was listed on 27.05.2019 and again request for adjournment was made by appellant and this Court passed following order:-
"1. A request for adjournment has been made by learned counsel for appellants.
2. Being very old matter, we normally do not adjourn but in the interest of justice we are accommodating only for today.
3. As prayed, put up on 29.5.2019"
4. Today also learned counsel for appellant has not prepared the matter and seeks adjournment. We decline request for adjournment.
5. We ourselves have gone through judgment of learned Single Judge. Although proceedings of court martial resulting in conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and dismissal from service, were challenged before this Court. Learned Single Judge has found that proceedings against respondent, were not conducted in accordance with law and punishment grounded on extra judicial confession which could not have been basis for punishment and learned Single Judge has allowed writ petition vide judgment dated 11.09.1998 which is a very detailed judgment and have considered all aspects. We do not find any manifest error in judgment of learned Single Judge.
6. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to Law Secretary of Government of India to see as to in what manner, pairavi of cases of Government of India has been done by Law Officers of Central Government and repeatedly, when old matters of 20 years or more, are not being attended properly. In the present case, conduct of counsel for appellant as discussed above, shows that appeal was repeatedly dismissed for want of prosecution, though battery of lawyers are in the panel of Government of India. This is a sorry state of affairs, and laxity shown by the learned counsel is apathetic. For this reason, cases in which Government is party, take longer time and are not decided expeditiously.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Vivek Kr.