Petitioner sought reinstatement and payment of dues following dismissal from service. Court held the petition was not maintainable due to failure to exhaust the appellate remedy and excessive delay in filing the representation.
The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to proceed with appropriate legal proceedings if any.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 3700/2018
Maghar Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh, By Caste Ramgariya, R/o Vpo Dhaba, Teh. Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Soni.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 16/11/2018
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty on the post of Constable (GD) and that the services may be considered continued. Further direction has been sought that the respondents may be directed to allow the application dated 23.1.2018 submitted by the petitioner with the respondents and sanction the medical leave alongwith payment of due salary with all consequential benefits.
A perusal of the record indicates that on account of overstaying after expiry of Mid-Term-Break, directions were issued to the petitioner to resume his duties, however, the petitioner failed to resume his duties. Whereafter, a Court of inquiry was ordered under Section 74(1) of S.S.B. Act, 2007. Despite issuance of notices, the petitioner did not appear pursuant to the court of inquiry and ultimately show-cause notice was published in the daily newspaper, however, the petitioner still did not join, resulting
(2 of 3)
[CW-3700/2018]
in the order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8) was passed, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
In the order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8), it was indicated that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Frontier Headquarter SSB Patna as per provision contained under Rule 29 of SSB Rules – 2009. However, it appears that the petitioner since passing of the order dated 11.5.2015 did not take any steps and vide representation dated 23.1.2017 (Annex.9) sought reinstatement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions seeking quashing of the action of respondents in terminating the petitioner from service on account of the fact that the petitioner was forced to overstay on account of having suffered fracture. Further submission has been made that despite various representations, respondents were not permitting the petitioner to join back.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
As noticed hereinbefore, the order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8), whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, was appealable before the Deputy Inspector General, nothing has been indicated in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and after almost 1½ year, made representation (Annex.9) on 23.1.2017 for being reinstated in service and thereafter filed the present writ petition on 7.3.2018 before this Court.
On account of availability of the alternative remedy against the order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8), the writ petition cannot be
(3 of 3)
[CW-3700/2018]
entertained as petitioner has failed to make out any case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without his availing the available remedy.
The submission made that the respondents be directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner also cannot be accepted as the petitioner has approached this Court after three years from passing of the order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8) and by way of directing decision of the representation, the cause of action which arose three years back and the petitioner did not avail any remedy against the same within a reasonable time, cannot be permitted to be revived by way of seeking disposal of the representation.
In view thereof, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in terms of the stipulation contained in order dated 11.5.2015 (Annex.8).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J.
Sumit-2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Inspector General.
Whether the Court can entertain a representation for reinstatement filed three years after the dismissal order.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Maghar Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh
Union Of India Through The Directorate General, Sashastra Seema Bal
Commandant 6Th Bn, Ssb Kharia
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
