Back
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Geeta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24th November, 2011 whereby the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of 'removal from service', which was modified vide order dated 09th February, 2012 of the appellate authority whereby the penalty was reduced to 'reduction of pay by three increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect', against which the petitioner's revision petition has been rejected vide order dated 21st February, 2020 on the ground of being 'time barred'. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on subject. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21st February, 2020 reads as under:-
"04. AND WHEREAS, I have meticulously examined the case. According to section 9(2A) of CISF Act 1968, the aggrieved person should prefer a revision petition within a period of six months from the date on which the appellate order is communicated to authority on 09.02.2012 and she acknowledged the same on 17.02.2012. Hence, the petitioner should have
The law favors the vigilant and not the indolent, and the equitable doctrine 'delay defeats equity' has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The principle that 'delay defeats equity' applies strictly to revision petitions, emphasizing the necessity for timely filing and valid justifications for any delays.
The judgment establishes that there is no provision for filing an appeal/application against the order of revision, and the petitioner can challenge the final order by way of revision before the conc....
The revisional authority's power must be exercised within the prescribed time limit; failure to do so renders the order void.
Court directs expeditious disposal of pending service rules revision petition without merits adjudication.
(1) Each day’s delay - The petitioner failed to explain or show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the cause shown for delay that the issue pertai....
The court emphasizes that significant delays in pursuing remedies may result in dismissal of claims based on laches and waiver of rights, particularly in employment disputes.
‘Sufficient Cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part & applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient caus....
Delay in filing a writ petition can result in dismissal, as equitable relief may be denied based on the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
