1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7695/2009 (Sohan Raj Dhariwal Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 3.8.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Kamal Dave for the petitioner. <><><> The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 3.4.1995, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension by preferring SBCWP No. 1103/1995. In the said writ petition No. 1103/1995, respondents informed the Court that disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner has already been completed and consequent thereto a penalty of reduction to lower grade was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.1996. The petitioner did not join on the lower post, therefore, yet another inquiry was instituted against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 11.6.1997 which culminated into an order dated 15.12.2000, imposing a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. The facts were taken on record in writ petition No. 1103/1995 in the order dated 9.2.2007. The time was sought on behalf of the petitioner to seek necessary advise for assailing the order referred above i.e. order of reduction to the lower grade and removal from service of the petitioner. The matter was adjourned for almost one year and ultimately on 8.5.08, the writ petition No. 1103/1995 was dismissed holding that in view of 2 the subsequent orders referred above, petition of the petitioner became infructuous. While dismissing the writ petition No. 1103/1995 vide order dated 8.5.2008, this Court observed that dismissal of writ petition NO. 1103/1995 shall not preclude the petitioner to take appropriate remedy against the aforesaid orders of penalties passed by the Disciplinary Authority, if permissible under the law. After order dated 8.5.2008 passed in petitioner's writ petition, the petitioner has now preferred this writ petition after delay of more than one year, on 20.7.2009 to challenge the orders dated 11.6.1997 and 15.12.2000. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that petitioner came to know about two orders in the year, 07 and specifically on 9.2.2007 if he had no knowledge of the order dated 30.12.1996 or had no knowledge of charge sheet dated 11.6.97 or the order dated 15.12.2000 when they were passed. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner since had no knowledge and had no copies of the orders or charge sheet referred above, therefore, he approached respondents authorities. He could not get the copies of the orders and it is also submitted that petitioner personally approached the authorities within 10 days from 9.2.2007 and yet petitioner was not given relevant documents. If it is so then also petitioner's writ petition suffers from serious latches, delay and inaction on the part of the petitioner. In addition to above, admittedly, the impugned orders were 3 appealable orders and petitioner without availing that remedy straightway has preferred writ petition which is not maintainable. Further contention of petitioner is that petitioner has now not been given complete copy of the order and page No.2 of order is missing. That itself is the ground taken by the petitioner in this petition to challenge the impugned order Annex.1 than that could have been the ground in the appeal also, and because of non-supply of page 2 of the impugned order cannot be ground for by passing the remedy of appeal. In view the above reasons, I do not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. arti