9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Examination. 5. On the complaint filed by the Board, the jurisdictional police authorities had filed charge sheet against the appellant's husband and other employees of the Board under Section 420, 467, 471, 458 and 120B of the I.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Patna. After the trial, the Judicial Magistrate had convicted the appellant's husband and other employees of the Board for the offences alleged in the charge sheet and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. by his order dated 7.2.1989. 6. The appellant's husband and other charge sheeted employees had filed Criminal Appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 7. While the appeals were pending for consideration, the Bihar School Examination Committee, Patna, by its order dated 4th August, 1992, terminated the services of the appellant's husband, since he had been convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, for offences under I.P.C. in Crime Case No. 18/7/TR No. 121/1998 of Police Station Kotwali, Patna. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant is rejected by the High Court on the ground, that, the appellant's husband had not questioned the order of termination passed by the Board (Committee), while he was alive and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any relief, since according to them, it appears to be a case of acquiescence. The court has also observed, that, nothing prevented the appellant's husband while he was alive to challenge the order of dismissal passed by the Board before the competent forum. The appellant is before us in this appeal, being aggrieved by the aforesaid finding and the conclusion reached by the court in L.P.A. No. 521 of 2007 dated 12.7.2007. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend, that, the deceased employee while he was in service, did not challenge the order of dismissal passed by the Board (Committee), since the dismissal order was the direct result of his conviction by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Assuming even he had questioned it before any superior forum, it would not have yielded any better result, since Bihar Service Code authorizes th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Counsel for the respondent, that, the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for amendment of the prayers made in the Writ Petition, by making an application seeking additional relief in the year 2007. Lastly, it is submitted merely because, the appellant's husband was acquitted of all the criminal charges by the Sessions Court, it does not ipso facto would entitle the appellant for all the reliefs claimed in the writ petition and, at any rate, the appellant is not entitled to arrears of salary from the date of termination till the employee is deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In aid of submission, the learned Counsel brings to our notice the observations made by this Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006)IIILLJ1075SC . 13. Before the High Court, the principal question for consideration was whether the appellant should be non-suited only on the ground that she had belatedly questioned the order of dismissal passed against her late husband in the year 1992 in a petition filed in the year 2005 and the other incidental issue was, whether the appellant is entitled for monetary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy. 16. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal [1987]1SCR1 , it was held as under: There can be doubt that the petitioners were guilty of gross delay in filing the writ petitions with the result that by the time the writ petitions came to be filed. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. Of Course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this case, The services of the appellant's husband was terminated only on the ground, that he was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate for certain offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is not a case where the delinquent employee was dismissed from service on the ground that he was charge sheeted by the police for certain offences under Indian Penal Code after holding a departmental enquiry. In the later circumstances, the delinquent employee could not have been heard to say that he did not question the order within a reasonable time, since the order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate has nothing to do with the order passed by disciplinary authority. As we have already noticed, the dismissal was in view of the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate, till that order is set aside by a superior forum, the appellant's husband or the appellant could not have questioned the same till he was acquitted by the Sessions Court. In view of these peculiar circumstances, in our view, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the appellant primarily on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant in questioning the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ujarat, wherein this Court has stated: 32. In the instant case, the appellant joined the respondent in the year 1953. He was suspended from service on 8-2-1979 and got subsistence allowance of ₹ 700 p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary. On 15-10-1982 dismissal order was passed. The appellant had put in 26 years of service with the respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant would now superannuate in February 1986. On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the department passed an order of dismissal on 21-10-1982 whereas the criminal court acquitted him on 30-1-2002. However, as the criminal court acquitted the appellant on 30-1-2002 and until such acquittal, there was no reason or ground to hold the dismissal to be erroneous, any relief monetarily can be only w.e.f. 30-1-2002. But by then, the appellant had retired; therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of dismissal without back wages. The appellant would be entitled to pension. 23. The facts in the aforesaid decision is more or less akin to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the issue that we have raised for our consideration need not detain us for a long. Therefore, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
