- (1.) THIS petition for writ was filed on 9.12.2009. A minor defect was pointed out by the registry and that came to be removed on 15.7.2010, however, prior to that the petitioner died on 18.2.2010, therefore, an application was also filed on 10.5.2010 to bring his legal representatives on record. Having considered facts and nature of the case, I deem it appropriate to accept the application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of petitioner Late Shri Labh Chand named in para 2 of the application be taken on record. Amended cause title containing necessary details of the legal representatives of Late Shri Labh Chand has also been filed. Same be also taken on record. Heard counsel for the petitioner on merits also.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondent Municipality on 23.1.1968. A notice dated 21.8.1974 was served upon him to explain the circumstances in which certain articles of the Municipal Board were stolen. The Administrator, Municipal Board, Shahpura under an order dated 6.9.1974 terminated the petitioner from service as no explanation was submitted in pursuant to the notice referred above. The petitioner being aggrieved by termination from service raised an industrial dispute but that was not referred for its adjudication to the adjudicating forum by the appropriate government. On being failed to have remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner preferred a civil suit before the competent court, but that came to be rejected on 15.3.1985 being barred by limitation. An appeal giving challenge to the judgment passed by the civil court also came to be rejected on 20.10.1990 and both the judgments referred above came to be affirmed by this Court on rejection of a second regular appeal on 21.11.2008. In view of the facts that merits of the order of termination were not at all examined at any level, therefore, now this petition for writ is preferred challenging correctness of the order of termination. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that Late Shri Labh Chand was subjected to disciplinary action and was penalised without affording any opportunity to defend himself, therefore, the penalty imposed i.e. of termination from service is void ab-initio. I have examined the entire record. True it is, that no regular inquiry was conducted but the order impugned on its face is not stigmatic. The termination of petitioner Late Shri Labh Chand was simiplicitor, as such no need was there to hold regular inquiry. Beside the above, the order impugned was passed much back in the year 1974 and now at this belated stage i.e. after a lapse of 38 years, I am not inclined to enter into other merits of the case. Suffice to mention that the appropriate government refused to make reference of the industrial dispute in the year 1981, but no suitable action was taken by the petitioner upto the year 1985. The suit filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation in the year 1985. When the suit was treated barred by limitation, I do not find any just reason to adjudicate the entire issue afresh in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.;