wm--m!^,tmsr-^se~Himi^SVasiSls^.-^^^'"wa^yyS!C,e., -w i& e>i HIGH eOURTOFCHHATT!SGARHATB!LASPUR W.P.ffi)No. 7234 of20)6 Psftioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. MHiayanus Khafkho, S/o Hiyas Khaikho, Aged about 51 years, R/o Vrtlage- Khairbar, Khudipara, Ambikapur, Disl: Sarguja-<C.G;) State ofChhatBsgarh. Through The Secreiary, C^-oper^we E^psrtment, D.K.S. Bhas'an, Raipur, Dist: Raip"r-<C^ The Registrar Co-Operatrve Sociefy,6Jlaspur-(C.G.) The Presktent, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Marayadit, Am'akapur, Dist: Sarguja—(C.G,} WRn'PETITIQS{UNCSRART!CLE2260FTHE GOSTtfUnONWiNW, SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri SftriA. N. Panfley, Advoeate forthepeStioneT. Shri Satish Gupta, DepuiyGovt. Advocats for the respondents No. 1 & 2, afiBEfi (Passed on this 9m day of May, 2007) ,- 1. By this petition. the petitioner has prayed for a sujtable writ or direction to quash ths impugned order dated 20th January, 1983 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, terminating the servjcesofthepetitjoner.onthegroundofembezzlementofamount oftheSamiti. 2. The brieffacte.in nutshen. are that the peGtionerwas appoihted on the postof Co-operatiye Managerw.e.f. 19.9.1977. Vldeorderdated :/ ;:; _ ... :. .: '- . .^:-;' 20m January, 1983 (AnnWure P/1) the s^vices of ttie peGfioirer was terminated by the respondent No.3, in accordance wffi the Servfce Ryte No.57,ontheallegationthatthepetitionerhadembezz|em9nt the amount of the Samiti. It is cfear from the reading of ttie ^. \?t. 'l.. impugnedorder.thatbefereterminatingtheserwceofthepetitioner. a show cause notice dated2.12.1982 was issued to e pefitioner, whteh was raplied by Nm and he had accef^d the allegations ieve.'led agaJnst him in the repiy toshow cause notice. 3. Thereafter, tte respondent No.3 fodged a F.I.R. against ttie pstjtioner. The petifioner, alcing with co-accuseei namely Badhdur, was prosecuted in 8i& Cnminat Cass No. 21^^XM, v/hereinthe petiSoner is acquitted vide judgmentdated 28.9.2005, passed ty ttie Judteia! Magistrate First Ctass, Manendrasarh, district- Koria. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the psSSoner submite that the termination order dated 20.1.1983 be quashed and the petitioner be rsinstated in servics, as the.peSBoner has been exonerated in She CriminaiCase No. 21^2004,wSiregard to ftesame inckfiant. 5. Ths terminafion of the petittoner was not on the ground of pendency of ths criininal case. The petitioner has fifed 8iis peSBon on 13.12.2006, seeking quashing of the Impugnec! order dated 20.1.1883. The grounc! of dslay shown by the petttioner Siatafter hi's acqujtta! from the Cfiminal Court, ttie respondent No.3 has not reinstated the peStionsrinsenflce. 6. The contention of the petitjoner deserves to be noted for rejecUon oniy as the services of the petitionerwas not terminated on account of lodging of a crimina! case wth regard to the saidincfclent. The senrices of the petiboner was terminated on the ground that the petffioner had accepted the allegafion of embezzlement levelled against him, irtthe replytothe showcause nofice. The petttioner has slept over his rightlor about24years. The petitionerwoke up from his slumber after hisacquittal in eriminal case whichwas not a ground for termination. \- Thakur 7. The petiBoner has filed this petition wfth inordinate and unexptained delay of about 24 years. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in P. S. Sadasivasvramy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (A.I.R. 1974 SC 2271). has hsid as under: "It is not that thers is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers urider Articte 226, nor is ft that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and •Aise exercise of discretion for Sie Courts to reftise to exercise their extraordinary powers under Articte 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and altow things to happsn and then approach the Court to put forward state clsims and try to unsettte settled matters." 8. The Hon'ble Suprems Court in State of M.P. v. Nandtal Jaiswal {(1986) 4 SCC 56S). whteh was reiied on jn Kamateka Power Corpn. Ud. through its Chairman & Managing Director & another V, K. Thangappan and another { (20(^5 4 SCC 322}, held that it is wsll settfed that High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinariiy assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the tethargic as the belated approach may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship as inconvenience but ateo injustice on third parties. 9. In view of the dteta laid down by the Hon'ble Suprems Court in several decisions and apptying the settled posSion of law to the facte of the case. v/herein the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of 24 years, without any justified rsason, this petition deservss to be and is dismissed, summarily._ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge