Delay and laches can bar relief in writ petitions, especially when the petitioner fails to assert rights in a timely manner, rendering the case devoid of merits.

JUDGMENT :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs :-

“17(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the respondent authority (at Annexure-A hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to act as per representation dated 19.08.2019 and further be pleased to reinstate the present petition on the post of Talati-cum-Mantri with all consequential benefits and back-wages and continuity of service along with arrears with interest @ 12 % p.a.;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the respondent authority (at Annexure-A hereto);”

2. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the present petition is that an advertisement came to be issued by District Development Office, Navsari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’), for the post of Gram Panchayat Mantri (Talati-cum- Mantri) Class-III. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner had submitted online application after following due procedure. Respondent authority vide communication dated 18.10.2011 informed the petitioner that he was selected for the post in question and vide order dated 20.10.2011 petitioner was appointed on a fixed pay subject to the conditions stated in the order. Subsequent to his appointment in the year 2011, the petitioner was transferred to Village Ambadi by the competent authority vide order dated 19.01.2013.

2.1. It came to the notice of the respondent authority that after a period of four years from the date of appointment of the petitioner, First Information Report being C.R. No. I-05 of 2015 came to be registered with Navsari ACB Police Station, which implicated the petitioner as prime accused. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had accepted Rs.15,000/- towards illegal gratification. Pursuant to the First Information Report, charge sheet was issued showing the petitioner as prime accused and thereafter trial had commenced. However, till date, the trial is still pending. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the registration of the First Information Report, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 25.06.2015, which is impugned in the present petition.

2. We have heard Mr. Panthil Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2.

3. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the order of termination is passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the order impugned is punitive in nature, which cast stigma on the petitioner. Therefore, such punitive and stigmatic order ought not to have been passed without holding departmental inquiry.

3.1. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the impugned order cast stigma upon the petitioner and it is not a simple order of termination. The entire decision making process of the respondent authority while passing the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that when stigma is cast due to termination of service, holding of regular inquiry was imperative and on such aspect, the impugned order is required to be quashed.

3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ka