Honble VYAS, J.–This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders Annex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.

(2). The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It is deposed of affidavit on affidavit by the petitioner that Shri Vinayak M. Joshi told him that he will require 2-3 months for setting the copies typed and preparing the writ petition and the petitioner was directed to come again for signing the papers in the last week of October or in November 1992. When in the month of November 1992 the petitioner came to Jodhpur, his Advocate Shri Vinayak M. Joshi was not available at Jodhpur. Therefore, he again came to Jodhpur in December 1992. However, when he met Shri Joshi he was informed by Shri Joshi that his appears are still not ready and so he should come in the month of January 1993; and, in the month of January 1993, he was again asked to come in the month of February 1993. In these circumstances, he enquired of his Advocate Mr. Joshi about limitation in the matter but Shri Joshi told him that in writ petition no limitation is prescribed.

(3). The petitioner narrates that in the month of June 1993 Advocate Shri Joshi cut a sorry figure and told him that unfortunately his file is either got lost or it has been misplaced with some other files of the office, therefore, fresh copies of the memorandum of charges and allegations will have to be obtained. The petitioner states on oath in the affidavit that his Advocate Shri Vinayak M. Joshi took from him more vakalatnama in his favour and since Shri Vinayak M. Joshi informed him that his file was not traceable, in the situation, the petitioner moved an application for obtaining certified copies of the relevant documents. Copies were made available to the petitioner on 11.4.1994 and, after obtaining the certified copies of the relevant documents, the petitioner handed over the bunch of copies and papers to Shri Vinayak M. Joshi. Then, again the petitioner signed all the blank papers for preparation of the writ petition. The petitioner states that besides himself, his first cousin Mohan Singh Rajpurohit and his own son Dilip Singh made regular enquiry from Shri Vinayak M. Joshi about the writ petition whereupon they were always told that the writ petition has already been filed and has been admitted and will come up for hearing in due course. Thereafter, when the petitioner himself again met Shri Joshi he was told that as and when his personal presence will be required in the matter he would be called. The petitioner further stated that he had also asked Shri Joshi as to how much time the litigation would take in final decision then Shri Joshi told him that looking to the large number of vacancies of Judges, listing of old cases and speed of disposal, the matter may at least take 4-5 years more. In this melee of circumstances, Shri Vinayak M. Joshi died in an accident on 31.5.2000.

(4). Faced with the situation, the petitioner contacted and requested Advocate Shri Patanjali M. Joshi, brother of late Shri Vinayak M. Joshi to handle his case pending in the High Court for which the petitioner offered him to pay additional fee; but, Shri Patanjali M. Joshi, Advocate told

Click Here to Read the rest of this document