- (1.) The petitioner, who was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.5.2010, and appeal against which was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2011, has approached this Court impugning the aforesaid two orders. The petitioner was appointed as PT1 on 1.8.1977. He was General Secretary of the Haryana Rajkiya Adhyapak Sangh of Block Jagadhri. He was involved in two cases bearing F.I.R. No. 268 dated 13.9.2006, under Section 294 IPC, and F.I.R. No. 269 dated 14.9.2006, under Section 354 IPC, both registered at Police Station, Farakpur. He was convicted in both the cases and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 294 IPC vide judgment/order dated 4/5.3.2010 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 354 IPC vide judgment/order dated 20/22.1.2010. After the conviction of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.5.2010. The order was upheld in appeal vide order dated 25.8.2011.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished because he had not participated in the strike of the teachers in the year 2005. He was falsely implicated in the cases by the rival group, otherwise ever since he was appointed in service, he had good track record. No adverse remarks were ever conveyed. In the impugned order of dismissal passed by the authorities, conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction has not been referred to, which is mandatory.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders, firstly, on the ground of delay and laches. The order of dismissal of the petitioner is dated 13.5.2010, whereas the appeal against the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2011. The present petition was filed in this Court on 25.9.2014. The same having been filed more than three years after the passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only. For the purpose, reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, 2006 11 SCC 464, wherein the issue regarding delay in invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction was considered. It was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees, who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming same benefit. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, 1989 2 SCC 356; State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, 1996 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, 2004 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: "5. So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, 2005 13 SCC 300. Whether they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this court? 6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not? xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others." [Emphasis supplied];