This single judge dismissal hold that a writ petition challenging a penalty order is not maintainable due to significant delay exceeding three years and the failure to avail the statutory right of appeal.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, as the alternative remedy of appeal was available.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8094 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 8094 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.8.2012
Ashwani Puri
... Petitioner
vs
The Chairman and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mrs. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority under Regulation 39 (1) (d) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short, 'the Regulations'), whereby penalty of reduction in basic pay by fifteen stage in the time scale, has been imposed on the petitioner.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised two preliminary objections namely that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after more than three years of the passing of the impugned order and secondly that in terms of Regulation 40 of the Regulations, the petitioner had the right of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order and further review and memorial under Regulations 48 and 49 of the Regulations, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the petitioner had the remedy of appeal against the impugned order, which was not availed of.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8094 of 2010
-2-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that the petitioner had effective remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order passed on 6.11.2006 which was not availed of at the relevant time and the present writ petition was filed more than three years after the passing of the impugned order, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of availability of alternative remedy and delay and latches.
Ordered accordingly.
29.8.2012 vs
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable considering the delay of over three years and the availability of alternative remedies.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashwani Puri
The Chairman and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
