This judgment dismissed a writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased government employee seeking to quash his punishment order, an increment stoppage, and unpaid salary recovery. The court held that the petitioner was guilty of unexplained delay and laches.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17706 of 2015
======================================================
Lalita Devi wife of Late Dhruvnath Singh, resident of village+P.O. Bhikhampur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok- SC-7 Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to SC-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-12-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17706 of 2015 dt.01-12-2023 2/6
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1223 dated 25.10.2011 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Siwan, by which the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Dhruvnath Singh, the then Panchayat Secretary, Block Office Lakari Naviganj has been imposed the following punishment :-
a) With immediate effect within 10 installments be recovered from salary of Rs. 1,39,305.00/-
b) Two increments is being stopped with non cumulative effect.
c) During suspension period he will be only entitled for subsistence allowance only.
The aforesaid punishment be entered in his service book without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay Rs. 1,39,305.00/- which might have been recovered from his salary and to not withheld 2 increments with non
Patna High Court CWJC No.17706 of 2015 dt.01-12-2023 3/6
cumulative effect and to pay the salary during the suspended period.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to revise her family pension without the aforesaid three punishment to her husband.
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner will be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
duty as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Raj Lakari Naviganj Block-Lakari Naviganj, District- Siwan, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Siwan (respondent no. 3) has passed an order as contained in Memo No. 1223 dated 25.10.2011 has imposed the following punishment :
(i) With immediate effect within 10
installments be recovered from salary of Rs. 1,39,305.00/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17706 of 2015 dt.01-12-2023 4/6
(ii) Two increments is being stopped with non cumulative effect.
(iii) During suspension period he will be only
entitled for subsistence allowance only.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17706 of 2015 dt.01-12-2023 5/6
and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Others, reported in AIR
2016 SUPREME COURT 3006, referring to the paragraph-20
which is as follows :
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus :-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether :
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolves;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
Patna High Court CWJC No.17706 of 2015 dt.01-12-2023 6/6
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of several years in challenging a punishment order passed against a deceased employee bars the widow from claiming relief via writ petition.
Whether laches and unexplained delay disentitle the petitioner from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and OthersReferred¶44
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Others, reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 3006 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶49
City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalita Devi
State Of Bihar
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department
Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar
District Magistrate, Siwan
Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
