KAUSHAL KUMAR PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-230
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 03,2014

Kaushal Kumar Pankaj Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28 May 2014, by which a writ petition1 filed by the appellant to challenge an order of termination from service as Constable (Bandi Rakshak) has been dismissed on the ground of laches.
(2.) The appellant was selected on the post of Bandi Rakshak in the Gorakhpur Division in a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Castes and was appointed on 9 March 2012. The appointment was on probation for a period of two years. During the course of the police verification, the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar submitted a character verification report on 12 April 2012 stating that when the appellant was thirteen years of age, he had been involved in a family dispute, as a result of which a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 325 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code bearing Case Crime No. 685A of 2003 and that the matter was pending before the competent Court. On the basis of this, a notice to show cause was issued to the appellant and since he failed to submit a reply, his services were terminated by the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur on 17 May 2012. In the meantime, barely three days before the order of termination, the appellant was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushi Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2252 of 2004, under Sections 323, 504 & 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant submitted a further representation, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Jails, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by an order dated 12 July 2012. The learned Single Judge, before whom a writ petition was filed, dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petition, which had been filed in 2014 to challenge the orders dated 12 July 2012 and 17 May 2012, was barred by laches and that the explanation of the appellant was not convincing.
(3.) The explanation which the appellant had submitted in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition for the delay was that the appellant was suffering from hardship due to termination of his services and had been put to starvation. Moreover, it was stated that it was only after arranging the expenses of the legal proceedings that the petition was filed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.