Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/6416/2008 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6416 of 2008
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1196 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15861 of 2004
With
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1196 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15861 of 2004
=========================================================
SEEMA
V.LAD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASSTT.GENERAL
MAANGER (ACR) & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KISHOR M PAUL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Civil
Application is for condonation of delay of 1114 days in filing review
application. In review application, the original petitioner seeks
recalling of the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.15861 of 2004. By the said order,
challenge made by the petitioner to the disciplinary action taken by
the employer-bank came to be turned down. The petitioner was facing
departmental inquiry. Charges were held to have been proved. The
Bank had therefore, removed her from service, which action was
challenged in the main petition. After detailed argument, the
petition was dismissed by the said judgment dated 28.1.2005.
Through
the review application, the original petitioner contends that to a
co-delinquent one Shri S.B.Shah, the Bank had indicated that if he
admits the charges, lesser punishment will be imposed and no such
facility was granted to the petitioner. On the ground of parity
therefore, the petitioner seeks reopening of the case.
I
have considered the question of delay as well as looked into the
averments made in the review petition. I am not inclined to accept
either the delay condonation application or the review petition for
the following reasons.
The
application for condonation of delay does not disclose sufficient
grounds to condone the inordinate delay of more than 1000 days.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on a decision of the
Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein the Apex Court
discussed the phrase sufficient cause . It was a case wherein
the court below had refused to condone delay of 4 days in a State
appeal.
That
the petitioner should get the same benefits as granted to Shri Shah
on the basis of letter dated 4.6.2004 was not raised in the main
petition.
Even
otherwise, the petitioner has not laid full facts on record to
suggest that what role said Shri Shah had played vis-a-vis the
present petitioner.
At
this distant point of time, I see no possibility of reopening the
issue which was closed way back in the year 2005. Both the
applications are therefore dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top