Honble SHARMA, J.–After a gross delay of about 18 years, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to quash the order dated December 20, 1974 whereby his services were terminated.

(2). The petitioner averred in the writ petition that since he was led in a trap case, impugned order of termination came to be passed by the respondents. Vide order dated March 26, 1984 the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge (CBI Cases) Rajasthan, Jaipur but the High Court acquitted him on January 31, 1992. An appeal thereafter was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 seeking relief of reinstatement on May 19, 1992 but no need was paid to it. After filing supplementary appeal the petitioner served notice for demand of justice and thereafter preferred instant writ petition.

(3). A preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of writ petition was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It was urged that the impugned order of termination had no bearing with the criminal case registered against the petitioner and as the writ petition was filed after a long delay of 18 years unaccompanied by any reasonable explanation, it should be dismissed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document