1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.593/2010 Sohan Raj Dhariwal Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Date of Judgment : 10.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Sohan Raj Dhariwal – appellant in person. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.7695/2009 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Article 225 of the Constitution and Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 3.8.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in consequence upheld his termination order dated 15.12.2000. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and in consequence justified in upholding the termination order dated 15.12.2000? 2 4. This is what the learned single judge held while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Since the order impugned is a short one, the same is reproduced in full:- “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 the subsequent orders referred above, petition of the petitioner became infructuous. 3 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 4 were 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.” 5. Facts of the case are these. 6. The appellant was a Development Officer in the respondent–Company. He suffered suspension. He challenged the same in writ petition. This writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous. He then suffered his termination in the year 2000. It was based on the departmental inquiry. He challenged his termination by filing writ petition out of which this appeal arise in the year 2009 i.e. almost 9 years from the date of his termination. It is this writ, which was dismissed by the writ court by impugned order giving rise to filing of this intra court appeal. 7. In our considered opinion, the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and latches on the part of writ petitioner (appellant herein). Indeed, it was apparent on its face and we find no ground to take a different view than the one taken by the learned single judge. 5 8. The delay of more than nine years in filing a writ petition to challenge the order of termination cannot be condoned. It is much more so when it is not explained what to say satisfactorily. The appellant was a Development Officer in the services of respondent–company. He could not claim ignorance of the legal provisions, its implication and consequences. He had knowledge of all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him because he was served with the notices issued by the Inquiry Officer, in person as also by way of publication. He never participated in the proceedings despite being served. 9. In our opinion, in such circumstances, the appellant’s action in filing a writ petition after a lapse of nine years cannot be said to be bonafide. The appellant appeared in person and argued his case before us. His main grievance was against his fellow officers, who according to him, were jealous of him and therefore they used to harass him. We are not impressed by such submission. It is entirely irrelevant to the issue involved in the case. 10. When law does not provide for any limitation for filing a writ petition, then as per the judicial decisions, the writ petitioner must file the writ petition within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action and in any event, it should be at least within three years from the date of accrual of cause of action and not beyond it unless the delay is properly explained. In this case, it was not explained. 11. The appellant however argued that he came to know of the proceedings only in the year 2007 and hence he filed a writ petition in the year 2009. He also argued that his lawyer advised him not to participate in the proceedings and demand all the papers in pending writ petition relating to suspension. He also argued that the respondent (employer) 6 too did not give him any documents when demanded by him at the relevant time. The submission to say the least has no factual basis. The inquiry papers filed by the appellant along with the writ petition clearly show that the appellant was served with the proceedings and yet he did not attend the proceeding. So far as lawyer’s advice is concerned, it has no merit, nor can be made basis for explaining the delay. 12. In view of forgoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI], J. [A .M. SAPRE], J. /tarun/