B.P.Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 3rd April, 1991 passed by the learned trial Judge. By the said judgment and order the learned trial Judge was pleased to direct the appellant to start afresh from the state of filing of the report of enquiry in accordance with the law after following certain procedures which were directed to be complied with in terms of the order of the learned trial Judge. The fact of the case in short is that the charge sheet as issued against the writ petitioner/opposite parties in the year 1976 and on the basis of the said charge sheet an enquiry was held and ultimately he was removed from service by an order dated 5th November, 1976. The writ application was moved before the learned trial Judge on 19th April, 1990. Admittedly, there was a delay of about 14 years. In order to explain the delay it was pointed out that the appellate order was passed on 16th February, 1990 and as such the question of delay should be ruled out.
(2.) The Chief Security Commissioner/R.P.F. rejected the appeal on 14th February 1990. After the same was entertained and rejected by observing "After a lapse of about 13 years ? months the said R. K. (now Const.) was preferred a representation dated Nil which has been received in this office on 16.1.90. The main point raised by the petitioner to defend his case, is that he was sick w.e.f. 4.11.76. But from the record it is revealed that he acknowledged the copy of D.O. referred to above on 22.11. 76. Hence it is clear that the plea of his sickness is fabricated later on. He did not avail of the challen as laid down in the R.P.F.D. & A Rule willingly. Hence I do not find any goal ground to interfere with the order already passed. The time barred petition is therefore rejected. The learned trial Judge held that the order of the removal was totally uniformed by any reason and that the same did not disclose the case, discuss the report of enquiry, and disclose the reasons for agreeing with the report of the enquiring officers. It was further observed that it did not discuss anything excepting the fact that the writ petitioner opposite party was removed from the service with effect from November 6, 1976. On the question of delay the learned trial Judge held that as the appellate order was passed on 16th February, 1990 the writ application was not barred by principle of delay.
(3.) The learned trial Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in P. B. Roy v. Union of India reported in (1972) 3 S.C.C. 432, in that case before the Supreme Court the representation of the appellant was first rejected on July 25, 1969 and that the petitioner could not approach the court as he was admitted to Tuberculosis Clinic in June 16, 1961 and therefore was a delay between July 29, 1960 and June 1961. The High Court rejected the writ application on the grounds of Inches. In that connection the Supreme Court noted with the Full Bench decision of Punjab High Court [S. Gurmel Singh v. Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (1964) PLR 589] wherein it was held that the delay in filing the petitioner was overlooked on the grounds that after the admission of a writ petition and hearing of arguments, the rule that delay may defeat the may defeat the rights of a party is relaxed and need not be applied if his case is positively good.;