IMPORTANT POINT
Timely legal action is essential; inordinate delay in challenging disciplinary orders can bar judicial review.

ORDER :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents resulting in the second respondent dated 21.04.2006 through his proceedings No.CNC DAC 392 E-37 and disciplinary authority dated 21.04.2006 the same was confirmed in Appeal through his proceedings dated 09.03.2007 by the second respondent through Ref.No.CO TRY DAC 292 E 37 06-07 and the same is confirmed pursuant to the order passed by an Appellate Authority namely the first respondent through his proceedings No.Nil, dated 02.03.2007 and quash the same and direction directing the respondents to settle all her husband's retiremental benefits such as Gratuity, Provident Fund, Pensionary benefits including monthly pension and all other benefits such as the attendant and monetary and backwages which are legally entitled to get for her husband with interest within the time stipulated by this Court and also considering the prevailing situation of the petitioner's family members.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the second respondent dated 21.04.2006, confirmed by the first respondent's order dated 09.03.2007, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner's husband who was in the services of the respondent prior to his death on 14.02.2018.

2.The petitioner has raised several grounds for challenging the impugned orders. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds admittedly, the following facts are undisputed:

a) The original authority had passed the order dated 21.04.2006, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner's husband who was a Cashier working in the respondent bank. The said punishment was imposed after holding an enquiry, in which the petitioner's husband participated and witnesses were also examined and the enquiry officer in his report has also held that the charges framed against the petitioner with regard to the misuse of the cheque amounting to Rs.12.5 lakhs has been proved.

b) Based on the enquiry report, the original authority passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2006, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner's husband who also died subsequent to the said date of the order in the year 2018 ie., on 14.02.2018.

c) The appellate authority namely the first respondent has also confirmed the order of the original authority dated 21.04.2006 by his order dated 09.03.2007.

d) Admittedly, while the petitioner's husband was alive, till 2018, he did not choose to file a writ petition or any other legal proceedings before this Court, challenging the impugned orders dated 21.04.2006 and 09.03.2007, which have been challenged in this writ petition.

e) Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed only by the wife of the deceased employee, that too only in the year 2021, after a lapse of more than 14 years from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 09.03.2007 by the first respondent.

f) The reasons given by the petitioner for the delay in filing of this writ petition is that earlier papers were handed over to another Advocate for initiating appropriate proceedings challenging the impugned orders, but the said Advocate did not take steps to file appropriate proceedings. The said reason cannot be treated to be a sufficient reason for condoning the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

3.Though a suit is said to have been filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 in O.S.SR.No.9103 of 2014, the said suit was rejected as not maintainable. The filing of a suit which has not been numbered in the year 2014 is not a sufficient reason for condoning such an inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

4.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has placed before this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Surji Devi reported in (2022) 1 SCC 17, in support of his