HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WPSS No. 310/2006 Vijay Pal Gautam Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. Approved for reporting. ___________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 7.3.2006 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 310 (SS) OF 2006 Vijay Pal Gautam, S/o Sri Laxmi Chandra Sharma, Presently posted in Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh. ……………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary (Home), Dehradun. 2. Inspector General of Police Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………Respondents. Sri H.S. Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated:07.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Both the parties have agreed that let the writ petition be finally disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.10.2002 and 29.08.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to order dated 10.10.2002 and 29.08.2005 passed by the respondent no.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that when the petitioner was posted at Police Station Jhankat Khatima in District Udham Singh Nagar in the year, 2000, a charge was leveled against him that while on duty he consumed liquor and took away the general diary. 3 On 15.12.2001, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice asking as to why an adverse remarks should not be entered in his character roll for the year, 2001. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and thereafter, the petitioner was kept under suspension for a period from 3rd July, 2000 up to 14th July, 2000 vide order dated 3rd July, 2000 and thereafter suspension was revoked vide order dated 15.07.2000. On 26.02.2003, an order was passed stating that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary and other consequential benefits accruing to the petitioner for the period 3.07.2000 to 14.07.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before passing the order dated 10.10.2002 neither disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and nor statement of the petitioner was recorded and further no copy of the preliminary inquiry or any other inquiry report was extended to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that against the order dated 10.10.2002, he filed an appeal before the respondent no.2., but the same was rejected without considering the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal as time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure laid down under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 was not followed by the respondent inasmuch as the petitioner was not informed in writing of the action proposed to be taken against the petitioner. The need of society is that there should be justice oriented approach and the appeal should not be rejected only on the ground of technicalities. The Apex Court has held in (2001) 8 SCC 151, M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chandra Sood as under:- 4 “Law Courts will lose their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society—technicalities there might be many but the justice-oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice.” In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, 1998 S.C.F.B. and Rent Cases pages 427, It has been held that law of limitation is founded in public policy on ‘the maxim of interest reipublicae up sit finis litium’ i.e. fal the general welfare, it has been held as under:- “The Primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause”. “Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life spen must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus 5 founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”. “It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanati0n”. In as much as the Apex Court has observed that the dismissal, of the cause on the action itself cannot be made when some applications are filed with some delay, the hearing on the lis being mandatory, one should not be deprived of hearing on merits. Relying upon the cases of R.v. Camborne Justices All England Law Reports (2) 850, it has been held in International Airports Authority of India Vs. K.D. Bali (1998) 2 SCC 360 as under:- “While indorsing and fully maintaining as integrity of the principle ‘justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done’, it is important to remember 6 that the principle should not be done than it should in fact be done.” Law Lexicon defines ‘justice’ as under:- “Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas just suum cuique tribuendi: justice is the constant and perpetual disposition or will of giving to every man his right” However, in view of the above, the matter is sent back to the respondent no. 2 for deciding the same afresh on merits after hearing the petitioner. So far as the relief of certiorari is concerned, the same cannot be interfered at this stage. Writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 07.03.2006 Rathour