Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
JC 492095w Nb Sub Gopi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 17757 of 2022 and CM Appl. 56750 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Summary Trial - Petitioner's Relief - The court directed the respondents to decide the revision petition within three weeks and convey the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned summary trial punishment order and be relieved of all adverse consequences, including discharge/retirement orders. The petitioner had filed a revision, which had not been decided, and subsequently retired from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to decide the revision petition within three weeks and convey the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The petitioner was also informed of the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
Issues: Dispute over the legality of the summary trial punishment order and adverse consequences inflicted upon the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide the pending revision petition and convey the decision to the petitioner in a timely manner.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to decide the revision petition and inform the petitioner of the decision, while also allowing the petitioner the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The petitioner in his present petition has made following prayer:
(a) To set aside the impugned summary trial punishment order dated 16.03.2022 being wholly illegal and violative of various statutory provisions.
(b) To set aside the impugned order, further hold and declare the petitioner as fully relieved of all the adverse consequences inflicted upon the petitioner including the discharge/retirement orders on account of non-grant of promotion, enhancement of age of superannuation, length of service and all other services aspects specifically taken away/made in applicable due to the effect of the impugned summary trial conviction order dated 16.03.2022.
(c) to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 4 to grant the service limit of the petitioner thereby permitting the petitioner to continue in service till final disposal of the present writ petition as permissible under the law by keeping in abeyance the discharge/release order dated 03.11.2021.
2. It is not in dispute that after the discharge/release order dated 03.11.2021, the petitioner had filed a revision dated 21.09.2022. However, the said revision has not been decided whereas the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2002 A/N.
3. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to decide the revision petition within three weeks from today and the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner within one week thereafter vide reasoned order.
4. Needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Timely decision on revision petition
Delay and laches can impact the admissibility of a petition, especially when seeking relief related to pension release.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making and providing a reasoned order in cases of appeal against removal from service.
Dismissal of conditioning writ as infructuous entitles retired employee to terminal benefits without impediment.
Timely adjudication of representation seeking refixation of seniority.
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
The court declined to interfere in the discharge order as the issue was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
The main legal point established is the distinction between discharge simplicitor and stigmatic orders, and the relevance of revisional authority's decision in such cases.
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
