Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Saleem Khan vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 15 July, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10207/2005 Saleem Khan Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 15th July, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.Ravi Kasliwal for the petitioner. Dr.A.S. Khangarot, Dy.G.C., for State-respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT:
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition was taken up for final adjudication at this stage.
2. Aggrieved of the non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, to reinstate the petitioner in service and accord other benefits as directed therein; the petitioner has instituted these writ proceedings.
3. Briefly, the indispensable essential material facts are: that the petitioner instituted writ proceedings registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 484 of 1985 (Saleem Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), assailing the order of the Principal, Superintendent of Police, Kota, dated 24th February, 1983, terminating his service for his alleged absence from duty for 19 days as informed by the Principal, Rajasthan Police Academy, vide order dated 15th February, 1983. This Court taking into consideration the facts and materials available on record, also examined the validity of the Standing Order Number 10/76, and concluded that the requirement of holding an enquiry, where the service of an employee is being terminated, on the specific allegation of misconduct, namely, absence during the course of training, cannot be dispensed with. In the result, the writ application of the petitioner was allowed quashing the order dated 24th February, 1983, impugned therein with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner and provide another opportunity of training afresh. In the event, the petitioner successfully completed the training, he would be entitled for confirmation in service along with all other consequential benefits but for actual salary for the period between 24th February, 1983 till the date of order i.e. 28th January, 1993.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, submitted that the petitioner could not gather the information about the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, since he was not in the town. He learned about the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, only when he saw other similarly situated candidates in service and on an enquiry from them, the fact of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, could be ascertained and therefore, represented to the respondents to reinstate him and accord all the benefits as ordered vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993. Having received no response, a notice for demand of justice was addressed through his Counsel. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondents have reinstated identically situated candidates ignoring him and therefore, the action has been assailed as discriminatory. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner could not contact his counsel at the relevant time on account of some family problems and has finally instituted the writ proceedings for compliance of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993.
5. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit raising preliminary objection regarding inordinate, undue and unexplained delay and laches while approaching this Court on 21st December, 2005 with a prayer for compliance of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993. The learned counsel for the respondents, Dr.A.S. Khangarot, Deputy Government Counsel, reiterating the pleaded stand in the counter-affidavit, repelled the claim of the petitioner on the ground of inordinate, undue and unexplained delay and laches in filing the present writ application as well as suppression of material facts. The learned counsel would further submit that the plea of the petitioner to the effect that he could not gather information of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, is absolutely misconceived, misleading and without any factual foundation. In fact, the petitioner was well aware of the judgment and order of which compliance is being sought for through the present writ proceedings, but it appears that he himself was not interested to join the duties. Be that as it may, the petitioner was called upon vide communication dated 29th May, 1993 (Annexure-R/1) to report on duty. The District Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota, addressed another communication to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sultanpur, for service of the letter of reappointment on 26th June, 1993 (Annexure-R/2). Another communication dated 17th July, 1993 was addressed to the Station Incharge, Police Station, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, for service of letter dated 29th May, 1993 on the petitioner. The letter was served to the petitioner by the Constable on 20th July, 1993. It is further pleaded that on 20th July, 1993, the petitioner moved an application claiming salary for the period with effect from 28th January, 1993 to 20th July, 1993 (Annexure-R/4) and this fact further corroborates that the petitioner was not interested at all to join the duties. The petitioner was again called upon vide communication dated 31st July, 1993 (Annexure-R/5) to first join the duties and thereafter, the issue with reference to claim of salary would be determined. The petitioner did not join even thereafter for the reason best known to him. The petitioner was served with a reminder vide communication dated 17th September, 1993. However, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 27th November, 1993 (Annexure-R/7) to the District Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota, claiming salary in compliance of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993. The learned counsel referring to communication dated 15th January, 1996 (Annexure-R/8), emphasized that the petitioner himself did not join the duties and therefore, the writ proceedings instituted in the year 2005, almost after 12 years of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, is a misuse of process of Court and therefore, the writ petition merits rejection with exemplary costs.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 484 of 1985 instituted by the petitioner, was decided by this Court along with identical matters being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 693 of 1983 (Girraj Solanki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 1003 of 1987 (Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), by a common judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, of which compliance has been sought for by institution of the present writ proceedings.
8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner instituted the instant writ proceedings on 21st January, 2005, almost after 12 years of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, rendered by this Court. The parties are not in dispute even with reference to various communications placed on record as Annexure-R/1 to R/8, which also includes letters written by none else but the petitioner himself, claiming salary in view of determination made in his favour vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993. Thus, there remains no element of any doubt that the petitioner was very much aware and had the knowledge of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993.
9. The respondents called upon the petitioner time and again to report for duty in compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, but the petitioner did not join the duties for the reasons best known to him. The plea of the petitioner being ignorant about the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1993, is absolutely misconceived, contrary to the materials available on record much less contrary to the contents of letter dated 22nd July, 1993 (Annexure-R/4) and letter dated 27th November, 1993 (Annexure-R/7), wherein the petitioner himself claimed salary with effect from 28th January, 1993, and further expressing his inability to join the duties in the event salary was not released in his favour.
10. Thus, in view of the materials available on record, I have no hesitation in my mind that initiation and institution of the writ proceedings, in the instant case, is a gross misuse of process of Court. The writ petition preferred, suffers with the vice of delay and laches and at the same time, is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed at this stage.
11. In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.
Sunil/P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.