SURRENDRA NATH Vs. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PUNJAB SIMLA
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, PUNJAB, SIMLA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner Surrendra Nath was working as a Forest Ranger in the Forest department, Punjab, when in 1960 he was served with a charge-sheet. An enquiry was held into the charges and the petitioner was dismissed on the 2nd of february, 1951, but this order of dismissal was set aside on 18th June, 1951, and the next day a show-cause notice was served on him. He was again dismissed on 24th of October, 1951. The petitioner appealed to the Punjab Government, but this appeal was dismissed on 22nd of October, 1952. He then preferred a revision to the Punjab Government, which was also dismissed on 22nd of September, 1953. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner made representations to the government and asked for copies of documents and statements of witnesses, and to the last latter that was received by him is of 3rd December, 1954, by which this request was rejected. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 27th of June, 1956,to get the order of his dismissal quashed mainly on the ground that he was not given adequate opportunity to show cause against his proposed dismissal.
(2.) THIS petition is hopelessly belated and on this short ground it must be dismissed. The order of dismissal was passed on 24th of October, 1951. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 22nd of October, 1952. If he was anxious to pursue his remedy he should have immediately come to this Court under Article 226. He, however, did not do so. He filed a petition for revision to the Punjab government and no provision of law has been brought to my notice under which such a petition for revision is competent. The time taken by an aggrieved party in making representations to the Government,which are not allowed under any law or rules applicable to the petitioner's case, cannot be taken into consideration when the question of undue delay is being considered. It is therefore, clear that after the final order had been made on 22nd of October, 1952, the petitioner could have availed of his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. He waited for about three and a half years before he approached this Court.
(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that delay is only a relevant consideration to guide the exercise of discretion in a given case and that the petitioner's dismissal is so patently illegal that this Court may overlook the delay and decide the case on merits to do justice to him.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.