Dismissed¶27

Krishna Das Dabgar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2024WPC/52/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; Article 226; writ of mandamus; challenge after 12+ years to departmental punishment order dated 25.03.2011 (Memo No.208/Estt., Deputy Commissioner, Chatra); stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect; promotion bar for three years; Jan Sevak; retirement 28.02.2019; pension fixation and less pension; knowledge imputed from salary impact; (2009) 1 SCC 168 para 26 relied on (City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala); writ petition dismissed; W.P.(S) No. 52 of 2023; High Court of Jharkhand; decided 08.04.2024; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

What did the court decide?

The punishment order directly related to the petitioner's salary; if there was any change or impact in his salary, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the order of punishment. ¶25

Krishna Das Dabgar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the punishment order dated 25.03.2011 is maintainable when filed after expiry of more than 12 years, i.e., whether inordinate delay and laches disentitle the petitioner to relief under Article 226.

¶18

Court's answer

The punishment order directly related to the petitioner's salary; if there was any change or impact in his salary, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the order of punishment.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

No specific date with regard to the petitioner's knowledge of the impugned order was mentioned in the writ petition.

¶25

Key takeaways

The Court was not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation for the delay in challenging the impugned order dated 25.03.2011 after expiry of more than 12 years.ratio¶26
Applying the ratio of (2009) 1 SCC 168, paragraph 26, the writ petition was held to have been filed after inordinate delay without any proper explanation, and was accordingly dismissed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.), by order dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 52 of 2023, dismissed a writ petition filed more than 12 years after a departmental punishment order. The petitioner, a Jan Sevak who retired on 28.02.2019, sought quashing of the office order in Memo No.208/Estt. dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and barring consideration for promotion for three years, pursuant to a charge sheet ('Prapatra ka', Annexure-4) in which he had participated. Held: the punishment directly affected the petitioner's salary, so he could not claim ignorance of the order; no specific date of knowledge was pleaded in the writ petition; the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. Relying on (2009) 1 SCC 168, paragraph 26 (delay and laches in Article 226 jurisdiction), the Court held the petition was filed after inordinate and unexplained delay and dismissed it.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 52 of 2023

¶3

Krishna Das Dabgar, aged about 62 years, son of Late Narsingh Das, resident of Dabgar Tola, Chatra, P.O. – GPO, P.S. – Sadar, District - Chatra … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. – GPO, P.S. – Sadar, District - Chatra … … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC VI : Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC VI

¶10

¶11

06 /08.04.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶12

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶13

“1. That the petitioner above named retired on 28.02.2019 from the post of Jan Sevak under the respondents seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for following reliefs:-

¶14

i) For setting aside the office order containing Memo No.208/Estt. dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, whereby and where under, the appellant found guilty and held punishment with stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and he shall not be considered the promotion till 3 years;

¶15

ii) For declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefits after setting aside the order containing Memo No.208/Estt. dated 25.03.2011;

¶16

AND/OR

¶17

For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary ground with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition to submit that the impugned order has been challenged after expiry of more than 12 years. The learned counsel has also submitted that the charge sheet in terms of “Prapatra ka” as contained in Annexure - 4 of the writ petition was duly served upon the petitioner and as per para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner duly participated in the departmental proceedings and the impugned order itself shows that a copy of the order of punishment was forwarded to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the punishment imposed against the

¶19

petitioner is withholding of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and that the petitioner will not be considered for promotion for a period of three years. The learned counsel submits that the punishment was closely related to the salary of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner having participated in the inquiry, the challenge to the impugned order after expiry of 12 years may not be entertained.

¶20

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 ( City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others) , paragraph 26, which is quoted as under:

¶21

“ 26. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing a writ. The principle is that the courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum.”

¶22

5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order and he attended the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019 and his pension was also fixed and subsequently he also realized that because of the impugned order, less pension was being paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and on bare perusal of the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner had also participated which ultimately culminated in passing of the impugned order contained in Memo No.208 dated 25.03.2011. It further appears that the petitioner has made a specific statement in paragraph 16 that on

¶24

¶25

the date of punishment since there was no any government account to keep any government money so the petitioner had kept the unutilized money in his account and as soon as he got the direction from the Block Development Officer, Partapur, he immediately deposited the same in the account of Block Development Officer. The fact also remains that the punishment order directly related to the salary of the petitioner and, therefore, if there was any change or any impact in his salary, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the order of punishment. Moreover, in the writ petition also, no specific date with regard to the knowledge of the petitioner about the impugned order has been mentioned.

¶26

7. This Court is not satisfied with the explanation as argued by the petitioner regarding delay in challenging the impugned order dated 25.03.2011 after expiry of more than 12 years.

¶27

8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and the ratio of the judgement relied upon by the respondents reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 ( supra), paragraph 26 as quoted above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay without any proper explanation for such delay and therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶29

Saurav

¶30

Krishna Das Dabgar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Das Dabgar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suneet Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sandeep Talan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Toppo Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner