Dismissed

Bharat Lal S/O Shri Shrichand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2021CW/5729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5729/2021, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against final disciplinary orders of censure and dismissal of appeal. The court rejected the writ petition due to unexplained delay of over nine years and laches, noting the review petition was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for unexplained delay and laches.

Bharat Lal S/O Shri Shrichand Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-5729/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5729/2021

¶5

Bharat Lal S/o Shri Shrichand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ramsinghpura, P.s. Sadar, District Dausa

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary, Home (Appeal) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, District Alwar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan. For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶14

23/09/2021

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 22.02.2011, 09.06.2011 & 14.12.2020 passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner was visited with the penalty of censure, his appeal has been dismissed and the review filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶16

The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958'). After response filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 22.02.2011, found the charges as proved and imposed penalty of censure.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958. The appellate authority, after giving personal

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-5729/2021]

¶20

hearing to the petitioner, rejected the appeal and maintained the penalty.

¶21

It appears that the petitioner thereafter did not take any steps against the orders imposing penalty and dismissing the appeal and after passage of over 09 years, filed review petition before the Governor on 30.10.2020.

¶22

By order dated 14.12.2020, it was indicated that as the review petition has been filed beyond limitation of three years, the same was not admissible and consequently, rejected the same.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions on the merit of the orders passed by the two authorities i.e. the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were not justified in imposing the penalty and dismissing the appeal.

¶24

However, when learned counsel was queried regarding the delayed filing of the review petition and the present writ petition, learned counsel attempted to make submissions that looking to the nature of order passed and its consequences, the said aspect be ignored.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.

¶26

As noticed herein-before, the order was passed by the disciplinary authority way-back on 22.02.2011, the appeal after providing personal hearing was dismissed on 09.06.2011 and the petitioner, thereafter, did not take any steps to question the validity of the said orders and as such, the orders became final.

¶27

Thereafter, it appears that only with a view to revive the cause, the petitioner filed review petition before the Governor in

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-5729/2021]

¶30

October, 2020 i.e. after passage of over 09 years, which review petition was rightly rejected as barred by limitation.

¶31

Not a word has been indicated in the writ petition either to question the dismissal of the review petition as barred by limitation or to explain the delay in filing the review petition / writ petition.

¶32

The mere fact that the petitioner is now feeling the pinch of the order of penalty cannot be a reason enough to question the validity of the orders, which have become final long back. The delay is wholly unexplained and as such, no case is made out for entertaining the present writ petition.

¶33

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed for unexplained delay and laches.

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

Rmathur/8

Bharat Lal S/O Shri Shrichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Lal S/O Shri Shrichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Bilochi D/O Shri Kevaldas Bilochi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deshraj Singh Gurjar S/O Radheshyam Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mali Raj Jat S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Jat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Singh (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Nathu Singh Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Ramesh Chand Meena Son of Shri Chhitar Mal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Jain S/O Shri Gulab Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan