SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 345

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.K. GOSWAMI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
Sualal Yadav, Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1974,
D/- 15-9-1975.

Headnote:

Rule 34,Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Enquiry - Service by an order - Appellant was a Sub Inspector of Police- He was dismissed from service by an order of Inspector-General of Police after holding a departmental enquiry in which it appears he was not present appellant appealed to appropriate authority and same was dismissed - After that appellant made a review application Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules - It appears review application was entertained by Governor and he passed an order holding that matter was not fit for review- Thereafter within about two or three months a writ application was filed before High Court which was dismissed by impugned -Held, Court that application merited dismissal because of undue laches and delay on part of appellant- High Court found that review application was made to Governor after a lapse of about two years which was unreasonable delay according to High Court- That is main reason why High Court accepted preliminary objection and dismissed writ application- Court are unable to hold that High Courts approach in this matter was correct- Since Governor had not dismissed review application on ground of delay and having entertained same held it to be a case not fit for review court take view that Governor dismissed review application on merits- That being position it was not open to High Court to resurrect ground of delay in review application at a remote stage and make it a ground for dismissing writ application- Court therefore allow appeal set aside order of High Court and remit writ application for disposal in accordance with law- It is hoped High Court will able to dispose of same expeditiously- There will be no order as to costs - Appeal allowed

Judgment

GOSWAMI, J. - The appellant was a Sub Inspector of Police. He was dismissed from service by an order of the Inspector-General of Police on or about 13th July, 1964 after holding a departmental enquiry in which it appears he was not present. The appellant appealed to the appropriate authority on October 12, 1964 and the same was dismissed on June 25, 1966. After that, the appellant made a review application under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 1st June, 1968. It appears the review application was entertained by the Governor and he passed an order holding that the matter was not fit for review. Thereafter, within about two or three months, a writ application was filed before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order.

2. A preliminary objection was taken by the State in the High Court that the application merited dismissal because of undue laches and delay on the part of the appellant. The High Court found that the review application was made to the Governor after a lapse of about two years which was unreasonable delay according to the High Court. That is the main reason why the High Court accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ application. We are unable to hold that the High Courts approach in this matter was correct. Since the Governor had not dismissed the review application on the ground of delay and having entertained the same held it to be a case not fit for review, we take the view that the Governor dismissed the review application on merits. That being the position, it was not open to the High Court to resurrect the ground of delay in the review application at a remote stage and make it a ground for dismissing the writ application. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the writ application for disposal in accordance with law. It is hoped the High Court will able to dispose of the same expeditiously. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation: AIR 1977 SC 2050

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top