Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parbodh Chander vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 December, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No. 27486 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 27486 of 2013
Date of decision: 13.12.2013
Parbodh Chander ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
The petitioner who was serving as a Constable was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.03.2003 issued by the Commandant IRB Amritsar (Annexure P-1). The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed on 15.10.2003 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Administration, IRB, Patiala (Annexure P-3). Even the revision petition preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 met the same fate in the light of order dated 13.01.2004 at Annexure P-4. Apparently, the petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy petition which was also rejected on 12.10.2005 by the Additional Director General of Police, Admn. Punjab (Annexure P-5). Things did not stop here and the petitioner preferred yet another mercy petition which has also been dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Annexure P-6).
It is towards impugning the aforenoticed orders at Annexures Kaur Harjeet 2013.12.20 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 27486 of 2013 -2- P-1, P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6 that the instant writ petition has been filed.
After having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that there would be no occasion for this Court to examine the validity of the impugned orders on merits. The writ petition is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
To overcome delay, counsel would submit that the last order has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs & Justice, Government of Punjab only on 11.02.2011 and as such, the basic order of dismissal passed in the year 2003 would stand merged in such order.
The submission made by the counsel is without merit. In S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P., 1989 (7) SLR 182, the Hon'ble Surpreme Court had held that the cause of action to an employee shall be taken to arise not from the date of original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made, and where no such orders is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation has expired. It was further clarified that such principle would not be applicable when the remedy available of has not been provided by law. It was further held that repeated representations not provided by law would not furnish a fresh cause of action.
In Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2008 (4) SCT 213, a Division Bench of this Court had followed the dictum in S.S. Rathore's case (supra) and had held as follows:
Kaur Harjeet2013.12.20 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 27486 of 2013 -3-
"8. It is undisputed that the punishing authority- respondent no.5 passed the order of punishment on 18.5.2005 (P-3), which was challenged in appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 15.12.2005 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana-respondent no.4 (P-5). Even the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 8.5.2006 (P-7). The instant petition has been filed on 17.7.2008 by claiming that subsequent mercy petition and representation (P-8 & P-10 respectively) filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 28.8.2007 (P-9) and 9.5.2008 (P-12). It is appropriate to mention that after availing all statutory remedies in the form of appeal and revision, no remedy of filing mercy petition or representation is available to the petitioner under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The petitioner has filed the mercy petition and representation inviting orders dated 28.8.2007 and 9.5.2008. It is, thus, apparent that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in challenging orders dated 18.5.2005 (P-3), 15.12.2005 (P-5) and 8.5.2006 (P-7). It is well settled that sending of representations repeatedly would not extend the period of limitation provided for challenging the orders passed by the Government. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a Constitutional Bench judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. (1989) 4 SCC 582. Therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner."
The ratio of the judgments in S.S. Rathore's case (supra) would apply squarely to the facts of the instant case. Petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 12.03.2003. The petitioner availed of the statutory remedies in the form of filing of an appeal as also revision which were dismissed in terms of orders dated 15.10.2003 and 13.01.2004 respectively. There was no further remedy of filing a mercy petition or representation available to the petitioner under the Punjab Police Rules, Kaur Harjeet 2013.12.20 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 27486 of 2013 -4- 1934. The subsequent orders dated 12.10.2005 (Annexure P-5) as also 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) were merely invited by the petitioner on account of having filed mercy petitions. Such orders would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to overcome the delay insofar as the institution the present writ petition is concerned.
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
December 13, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
harjeet JUDGE
Kaur Harjeet
2013.12.20 10:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document