The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside a pension-reducing order passed years earlier on grounds of unexplained delay. Withdrawing further prayers against misappropriation claims, the Court rejected the writ as well as an ancillary chamber summons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp2267-10
1
Dmt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2267 OF 2010
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 202 OF 2011
B.N. Upadhyay. .. Petitioner.
versus
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.
.....
Mr. Y.R. Singh for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.J. Khambata, ASG with Mr. Rohan Cama and
Mr. H.V. Mehta for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni with Ms. Pooja Kulkarni and Mr. T.R.
Yadav for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
......
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
A. A. SAYED, JJ.
04 JANUARY 2012.
wp2267-10
2
Dmt
P.C. :
The first relief that is sought in these proceedings
is setting aside of an order of punishment imposed after a
disciplinary inquiry and the consequential order of the Appellate Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 5 May 2004, following an inquiry by which the pay of the Petitioner was reduced by three stages for a period of three years and postponing the grant of future increments. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed as time barred on 16 March 2005.
The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been lodged on 26 March 2010. The delay is clearly not explained. The Petitioner has in the meantime superannuated from service on 31 December 2008. We decline to entertain the Petition which seeks to challenge an order of punishment passed nearly six years prior to the institution of the Petition only on the
ground of unexplained delay.
wp2267-10
3
Dmt
inter alia, as against the Managing Director of Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited and the company. By an order of the Division Bench dated 20 September 2011 the Court recorded the statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that prayer
clause 2 (a) which was against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was withdrawn, prayer clause 2 (b) which was against Respondent No. 2 was withdrawn and prayer clause 2 (c) and prayer clause
2 (d) have also been given up.
wp2267-10
4
Dmt
an assertion to the contrary at the hearing of the Petition. As
regards prayer clause 2(f), it has been stated that the Petitioner
did not qualify for the post of Executive Director since he has not held the post of General Manager for a period of eight years. Prayer clause 2 (g) is for consequential and the relief as sought for the payment of twice the last drawn salary cannot be granted in law. Prayer clause 2 (h) seeks a direction against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents to
pay to the Petitioner 20% of the allegedly misappropriated expenditure on the operation and maintenance of Russian MI-172 helicopters. The Petitioner has not made out any basis either in law or in fact for the grant of the relief. No case
for interference is made out. The Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Chamber Summons does not survive. The same is dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(A. A. Sayed, J.)
Dmt 5 wp2267-10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition challenging a disciplinary order passed six years prior remains maintainable despite unexplained delay.
Whether the court can be persuaded to hear a petition after the petitioner has withdrawn specific claims made in a prior notice.
Whether the petitioner has established a legal or factual basis for the prayer seeking 20% recovery of allegedly misappropriated expenditure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.N. Upadhyay
Union of India
Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited
D.Y. Chandrachud
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
