In a writ petition seeking quashing of an order stopping increment and denying salary due to unauthorized absence, the court referred Supreme Court precedents on writ jurisdiction. Noting the petitioner's delay of over two years despite a prior writ filing, the court dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found.
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.19664 of 2014
======================================================
Janardan Singh Son of Late Basudeo Singh Resident of Village-Singhchak, P.S-Chanan,District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-12-2023
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Pankaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19664 of 2014 dt.11-12-2023 2/5
09.11.1979. In the year 1992 when the petitioner was posted in Rail Police Station and he proceeded on leave on 18.06.1993 after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and thereafter the petitioner was to resume his duty on 26.06.1993 but due to his illness he could not join and he had sent his application for extension of his leave with annexing medical certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner went for joining his duty on 08.11.1993 then it has been informed that he has already been suspended vide order dated 30.08.1993 due to his non-joining in the post in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19664 of 2014 dt.11-12-2023 3/5
by the petitioner was allowed and order of dismissal has been set aside vide order dated 23.02.2012. However, the salary for the period in question i.e. 26.06.1993 to 16.03.2012 has not been allowed and the petitioner has stated in his petition that the petitioner had spent the period in a departmental proceeding since 08.11.1993 to 16.03.2012 and hence there is no laches on the part of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19664 of 2014 dt.11-12-2023 4/5
submits that there is no infirmity in the proceeding and the proceeding was conducted in accordance with Rules and proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and apart from that the impugned order was passed on 23.02.2012 but the petitioner has challenged the same in the month of November, 2014 and the petitioner has accepted the order passed by the Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur without making any objection.
“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 :
Patna High Court CWJC No.19664 of 2014 dt.11-12-2023 5/5
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any
complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolves;
remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
general principle before entertaining any writ petition. The writ court is duty bound to examine delay as well as laches.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 19.12.2023 |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the delay of over two years in approaching the court after the impugned order was passed.
Whether the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches by challenging the order after more than two years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and OthersReferred¶28
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Others, reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 3006 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Janardan Singh
The State Of Bihar
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
The Inspector General, Rail Police, Patna
The Deputy Inspector General, Rail Police, Patna
The Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur
Rajesh Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
