Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18852
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
M.KASTHURI – Appellant
Versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
Inordinate delay in challenging disciplinary orders results in dismissal of writ petitions, limiting judicial review rights.
Headnote:
Delay - Employment - Acts and Sections List - The court dismissed a writ petition challenging compulsory retirement due to inordinate delay, interpreting statutory provisions on judicial review limitations regarding disciplinary actions. The judgment emphasizes prompt legal action post-disciplinary orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders of compulsory retirement imposed on her late husband, a bank employee, after a disciplinary inquiry for misuse of funds. The orders were issued in 2006 and confirmed in 2007, with the husband passing away in 2018 without contesting them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be filed after an inordinate delay of over 14 years, noting that the deceased employee had not sought to challenge the disciplinary actions during his lifetime. The reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were insufficient.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the orders of compulsory retirement was maintainable given the significant delay in filing it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review is not available in cases of inordinate delay in contesting disciplinary actions, reinforcing the principle that prompt legal action is necessary to seek remedy.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed due to inordinate delay.
O R D E R
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 submission that whenever there is an inordinate delay in challenging a termination orders before the Court, there cannot be any judicial review /
interference of the impugned orders.
5.In the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the said Bank which is almost similar to the facts of the present case, the late husband of the writ petitioner therein was dismissed from service on 16.12.1996. During the pendency of the appeal challenging the dismissal order, the husband of the writ petitioner therein passed away in the year 2009. The husband of the writ petitioner therein got superannuated in the year 1999. The writ petitioner therein challenged the dismissal order by filing a writ petition only in the year 2012 ie., 15 years from the date of termination and approximately 13 years from the date on which the employee would have superannuated ie., from 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone.
6.Eventhough learned Counsel for the petitioner had pla
