Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Narsingh Pratap Singh on 21 July, 2014
Writ Appeal 1477/2013
21.7.2014
Shri Rahul Jain, Additional Advocate General for the
appellants.
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This is an appeal filed by the State Government under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth of Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question the tenability of an order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.13305/2003.
The respondent was a head constable in the police department and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Two charges were levelled against the respondent and based on the finding recorded in the enquiry, it was found that charge no.1 was not proved but charge no.2 was proved. However, with regard to charge no.2, learned writ court found that witnesses for this charge have not supported the case of prosecution but simply on the testimony of the inquiry officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry. the charge is held to be proved. Holding that it is a perverse finding, the writ court interfered into the matter. However, the fact remains that there is a delay of more than 700 days in filing of this appeal and, therefore, the first question as to whether the delay in filing of this appeal requires condonation.
The reason for interference by this court is available on record in the application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.16938/2013) wherein it is stated that after the judgment was passed by the writ court on 10.1.2012, opinion from the Government Advocate was sought for on 13.3.2013. However, the action taken in the matter after the copy was received on 10.1.2012 upto 13.3.2013 is not indicated. There is total silence on part of the State Government in explaining the period of delay. In paragraph 4, it is said that approval was given by the law department on 13.11.2013 and officer-in-charge was also appointed, who received the opinion on 13.11.2013 and after having received the opinion on 13.11.2013, the appeal was filed after more than 25 days on 9.12.2013 and the delay after 13.11.2013 upto 9.12.2013 is not explained.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the appeal has been filed, we are of the considered opinion that reasonable justification for the delay in filing of this appeal is not forthcoming from the State Government.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on account of inordinate delay.
(Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
amit