Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home & Anr. ( S/S ... vs Raj Mani Singh S/O Gaya Prasad Singh on 7 January, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
1
Court No. 1
Special Appeal No. 5 of 2010
State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Vs.
Raj Mani Singh.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
This special appeal against the judgement and order dated 5.4.07 has been filed with a delay of more than 2 years and 8 months.
An application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, has also been filed.
Having perused the said application, we are convinced that there is no explanation, worth the name, for being accepted.
Admittedly, the judgement and order was pronounced after hearing the State counsel and to his knowledge in open Court on 5.4.07. The State did not take any action even for applying for a certified copy of the order, though the order was served by the respondent upon the State on 13.4.07.
Legal opinion is said to have been asked from the office of the circle officer on 1.5.07, which was responded to on 2.6.07. A proposal was prepared and sent the State Government on 6.6.07 for seeking approval for filing the appeal, where the matter remained pending and if the averments made in Para 3 of the affidavit are to be believed, the State Government despite multiple reminders being sent i.e. on 3.8.07, 3.9.07, 31.10.07, 18.11.07, 31.12.07, 4.10.08, 29.11.08, 27.1.09, 22.7.09 and lastly on 25.7.09, did not choose to proceed in the matter nor granted any permission.
It was only on 14.9.09 that permission was granted by the State Government, which was received in the office of the Circle Officer, who is the deponent in the affidavit, on 31.10.09. The Circle Officer on his turn, again kept the matter pending with him and it is only on 11.11.09 that he approached the Chief Standing Counsel, when the matter was allotted to one Standing Counsel on 13.11.09, who again asked for certain papers, which were provided allegedly on 20.11.09 but the special appeal has been filed on 5.1.2010.
The events which have been mentioned in the affidavit and the dates thereof, clearly establish that the State Government did not take the matter seriously and that despite reminders being sent the State Government, it did 2 not choose to grant permission knowing fully well that limitation for filing special appeal already lapsed and thereafter the deponent to the affidavit and the State counsel took their own time in proceeding with the matter.
We do not find any such ground which can be taken as an appropriate explanation for filing special appeal with such a great delay.
A litigant cannot be kept in lurch and under fear for years together that despite the order having been passed by the learned Single Judge, still he can be subjected to litigation by filing special appeal, may be after 2 years, 3 years or 4 years, as the case may be.
Such a casual and indifferent attitude of the State Government would not persuade the Court to condone the delay.
However, we have also looked into the merit of the special appeal, just to find out that whether any gross miscarriage of justice has been done in the matter.
Admittedly, the respondent was working as a Constable in the Civil Police, wherein he was recruited on 15.2.80. It was in the year 1983 that his services were terminated, when he was found to be involved in a criminal case, which was decided on 27.1.93. The termination order was issued under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, by giving one month notice treating the respondent as temporary government servant.
On acquittal of the respondent in the criminal trial on 27.1.93, he applied for reinstatement into service. Having not been reinstated, the present writ petition was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was not a case of termination on the ground of involvement in criminal trial but it was a case of termination on overall assessment of the work of the respondent and irrespective of the result of the criminal trial, termination order could not have been set aside.
The argument appears to be attractive but is not borne out from the record.
In the counter affidavit filed by the State in the writ petition, except a bald allegation that his services have been terminated because he was a temporary employee, nothing has been brought on record as to what was the material which was considered by the department, while finding that he was not a fit person to be retained in service on his overall performance.
3That being so, the foundation of the termination order was involvement of the respondent in criminal trial, in which he was honourably acquitted and that being the foundation, the order of termination could not have been sustained.
We do not find any error in the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special appeal is dismissed.
Dated: 7.1.2010 MFA