Back
1994 Supreme(P&H) 341
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia and S.K.Jain JJ.
Randhir Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 16547 of 1992,
Decided On : MARCH 31, 1994
Delay and laches in filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is merely a fetter in the exercise of discretion and is not an absolute bar to the belated petition. However, the court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction where the petitioner is guilty of laches for which there is no satisfactory explanation.
Headnote:
INCREMENT - STOPPAGE - PROCEDURE - LIMITATION - LACHES - DELAY - WRIT PETITION - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 113 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1970 - RULE 5 - MAJOR AND MINOR PENALTIES - DELAY AND LACHES IN FILING A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - DELAY AND LACHES AS A FETTER IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - DELAY AND LACHES NOT AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THE BELATED PETITION - EACH CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN FACTS - DELAY AND LACHES MAY BE EXCUSED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES - DELAY AND LACHES MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION - DELAY AND LACHES MAY RESULT IN GREAT HARDSHIP TO OTHER EMPLOYEES - DELAY AND LACHES MAY RESULT IN THE COURT REFUSING TO EXERCISE ITS EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Rewari Depot, Rewari, challenged the orders passed in the years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1982 stopping his increments with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect. The petitioner alleged that the increments were stopped without following the proper procedure, and as such the orders were bad in law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of stoppage of increments were passed as a minor penalty under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as applicable to the State of Haryana then. The court also found that the petitioner had challenged the orders after more than 12 years, which was beyond the limitation period of three years prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of stoppage of increments were passed in accordance with the proper procedure? 2. Whether the petitioner's challenge to the orders was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the orders of stoppage of increments were passed as a minor penalty under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as applicable to the State of Haryana then. 2. The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the orders was barred by limitation as it was filed after more than 12 years, which was beyond the limitation period of three years prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The court held that it could not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the circumstances of the case as the petitioner was guilty of laches and delay in filing the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches.
G.R.Majithia and S.K.Jain JJ.
1.
G. R. Majithia, S. K. Jain, JJ.
2.
3. 1. This judgment disposes of C. W. P. No.16547 of 1992, 89 of 1993 and 101 of 1993.
4. 2. A challenge has been made to the orders passed in the years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1982 stopping increments with commulative effect or without commutative effect in these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. 3. A reference to the relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in C. W. P. No.16547 of 1992, which was filed in this Court on December 15, 1992. The details of the impugned orders by which increments were stopped with commulative effect or without commulative effect are as under :1) Order No.92/ecc, : Two increment stopped with dated commulative effect 19.1.77 2) Order No.400/ecc, : -Dodated 3.2.1977.
6. 3) Order No.1525/ecc, : One increment stopped with dated 2.3.1978. commulative effect 4) Order No.1526/ecc, : -Dodated 8.2.1978.
7. 5) Order No.2757/ecc, : -Dodated 17.1.1979.
8. 6) Order No.2751/ecc, : -Do-
9. dated 17.1.1979.
10. 7) Order No.2754, : -Dodated 17.1.1979.
11. 8) Order No.2748/ecc, : -Dodated 17.1.1979.
12. 9) Order No.2748, : Two increments stopped dated 17.1.1979. with conmulative effect 10) Order No.2742/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 17.1.1979. with commulative effect 11) Order No.2739/ecc, : Two increments stopped dated 17.1.1979. with commulative effect 12) Order No.2761/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 17.1.1979. with commulative effect 13) Order No.2761/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 17.1.1979. with commutative effect 14) Order No.1635/ecc, : Two increments stopped dated 20.7.1979. with commutative effect 15) Order No.2607/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 20.7.1979. with commulative effect 16) Order No.1961/ecc, : -Dodated 9.8.79.
13. 17) Order No.2230/ecc, : -Dodated 21.8.79.
14. 18) Order No.4014/ecc, : -Dodated 26.10.1979.
15. 19) Order No.4011/ecc, : -Dodated 26.10.1977.
16. 20) Order No.6280/ecc, : -Do-
17. dated 11.1.1982.
18. 21) Order No.6132/ecc, : -Dodated 10.1.1982.
19. 22) Order No.5429/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 6.11.82. without commulative effect 23) Order No.5434/ecc, : -Dodated 6.11.82.
20. 24) Order No.5428/ecc, : One increment stopped dated 26.12.1979. without commulative effect from 5.5.79 to 23.5.79.3. The only grouse of the petitioner is that the increments were stopped without following the proper procedure, and as such the orders are bad in law.
21. 4. Written statement has been filed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rewari Depot, Rewari, stating that the petitioner, was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1976.31 orders for stoppage of increments had been passed against the petitioner on account of misappropriation of government money, details of which are reproduced below:" (1) Two increments stopped with cumulative effect vide order No.400/ea dated 3.3.77 on account of misappropriation of Govt. money Rs.5.25 np. Show cause notice was served. Reply of show cause notice received. "
22. (2) Two increments stopped with cumulative effect vide order No.92/ea dt.19.1.77 on account of misappropriation of Govt. money Rs.5.25 np. Charge sheet was served reply received, show cause notice was served, reply to show cause notice received.
23. (3) One increment stopped with cumulative effect vide order No.1525/ec, dated 8.3.78 on account of misappropriation of Govt. money Rs.4.40 np; show cause notice was served, reply of show cause notice received.
24. (4) One increment stopped with cumulative effect vide order No.1536/ecc dt.8.3.78 on account of misappropriation of government money Rs.4.80 np; show cause notice served, reply of show cause notice received.
25. (5) One increment stopped with cumulative effect vide order No.2742/ecc dt.17.1.79 on account of misappropriation of Govt. money Rs.1.80 np; show cause notice served; no reply received inspite of reminder.
26. (6) One increment stopped with commutative effect vide order No.2739/ecc dt.17.1.79 on ac
