^^ A •l'°f> fflGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS l^'t- i—- WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. 7628 of 2007 Kamdev Verma S/o Vishnoo Dutt Verma, aged about 60 years. Dismissed Sub-Engineer, BIock Of&ce - Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Presently residing at Village Palari, Tehsil - Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat Avam Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat (Old Department Block Development OfGcer) Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. The Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. The Assistant Commissioner (Development) Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Development Commissioner Office, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6. The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Raipur Distt. Rsipur (C.G.) WRLTPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon'ble Justice Shri Satjsh K. Aenihotri. Present: Shri J.R.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1, 3,4and 5 ORDER (Passed on 02"' day of January, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Engineer in Block Mahasamund. He was dismissed from service on 31.01.1981. 2. The petitioner, by this petition seeks, inter-alia, following relief: " 7.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the dismissal to be illegal, arbitrary, perverse, biased, malafide and unconstitutional and the petitioner has been acquitted by leamed Chief Judicial Magistrate videjudgfflent dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P/3) ofthe charge falsely roped U/s 409 I.P.C. he be allowed for all the service rules benefits provisional so for pension and retrial benefits gratuities outstanding salary since 31.3.1981 of the dismissal relieving order and with increased 'SSt. 6j benefits salaries dues since date ofacquittal dated 08.12.2004 in view ofthe decision ofHon'ble Supreme Court and proyisions of law. Issue of writ direction and order appropriate against the respondents." On query that whether the dismissal order was passed on the basis of pendency of criminal case, and further what did the petitioner do smce 31.03.1981 till date. Leamed counsel, without replying to the query, contends that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujrat, as the facts involved are similar. With regard to the laches and delay of more than 27 years in filing the petition, the leamed counsel submits that the petitioner was waiting for decision in criminal case. The leamed counsel has miserably failed to establish the facts that the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the departmental case against the petitioner and the charge before the criminal Court were one and the same. It is well settled principle of law that a decision is authonty for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value ofa decision. (See Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and others) In absence of supply of the complete facts, it is difficult to hold that the dismissal ofthe petitioner and the criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in departmental case against the petitioner and the charge before the criminal Court were one and the same. Thus, the case ofG.M.Tank (Supra) is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts ofthe instant case. ^il ;a 1 11 .itfir %t^ .^•sessi,^ !? B>^,.. 1 ij^^ I, a ~*"S8 'i §•..,. ,?' 7. It is well settled that High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic as the belated approach may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. (See Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. The State of Bihar & Others , P.S.Sadasivaswam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu4, State of M.P. & Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others , Bum Standard Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & another and Kamataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director & another Vs. K.Thangappan & another ). 8. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference with the order dated 31.01.1981, dismissing the petitioner from service. 9. On the basis ofincomplete facts, the petition cannot be decided. However, if the petitioner is ofthe view that his termination order was passed on account of criminal case pending in a criminal court, fhe petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the authorities concemed. In the event a representation is made, the concemed authorities shall consider the representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 10. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition stands disposed ofat motion stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ 1.2006 (5) SCC 446 2. 2003 (2) SCC 111 3.AIR1973SC1343 4.AIR 1974 SC 2271 S. (1986) 4 SCC 566 6. (1995) 4SCC 172 7. (2006) 4 SCC 322 Amit