HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 18.1.1977, 29.8.1977, 24.4.1978, 22.6.1969 and 31.8.1987 (Annexures P. 2 to P. 6) stopping the increments of the petitioner. On account of the aforementioned order passed in the year 1977/1978 the increments of the petitioner were stopped with cumulative effect without holding any regular departmental enquiry. The basic ground for challenging the afore-mentioned orders is that an order stopping increment with cumulative effect could not be passed without holding a regular department enquiry as it amounts to imposition of major penalty. The argument is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1990 6 SLR 73. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has challenged the afore-mentioned order by filing a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Bahadurgarh which was dismissed on 2.12.2002. The civil suit was instituted on 2.11.2000 after huge delay of 13 to 23 years. However, the Civil Court dismissed the suit on merits, delay and territorial jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before the learned District Judge, Jhajjar was dismissed on 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-8) on the ground of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit although on merits it was observed that the suit was not barred by limitation as it is a continuous cause of action. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court in RSA No. 4338 of 2004, the same was disposed of on 7.1.2005 by observing that no fault could be found with the findings of the learned Courts below that the Civil Court at Bahadurgarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This Court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2238 of 2006 which again has been dismissed as withdraw with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court as is evident from the perusal of the order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure P. 10). Consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition challenging the orders Annexures P. 2 to P. 6.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel we find that there are various hurdles in the way of the petitioner in order to succeed in obtaining the relief claimed. The impugned orders have been passed more than 13 to 23 years ago. If the period of limitation is taken from the date of filing of civil suit even then it is well settled that an adverse order passed against a public servant has to be challenged before the Court of law within a period three years under Article 113 of the schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963 . Even Article 113 provides that such order was required to be challenged within a period of three years. In that regard, reference may also be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhai Lal Bhai, 1964 AIR(SC) 1006 In the afore-mentioned judgment it has been observed that the limitation which is applicable to the filing of the suit would be equally applicable to the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, even the writ petition would not be maintainable in the year 2000.

(3.) In view of the above, we dismiss the writ petition at the ground of delay and laches.