IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No 7628 of 2007
Kamdev Verma
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1 The State of Chhattisgarh
2 Chief Executive Officer Janpad
Panchayat Old Department Block
Development Officer Mahasamund
3 The Collector Mahasamund
4 The Assistant Commissioner
Development Mainpur Distt Raipur
5 The Chief Engineer Rural
Engineering Service Development
Commissioner Office Raipur
6 The Chief Executive Officer
District Panchayat Raipur
...Respondents
! Shri J R Verma Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri S K Mishra Panel Lawyer for the State
respondent No 1 3 4 and 5
Honble Justice Shri Satish K Agnihotri
Dated: 02/01/2008
: Order
...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORDER
(Passed on 02nd day of January, 2008)
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Engineer in Block
Mahasamund. He was dismissed from service on 31.01.1981.
2. The petitioner, by this petition seeks, inter-alia,
following relief:
” 7.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to hold the dismissal to be illegal,
arbitrary, perverse, biased, malafide and
unconstitutional and the petitioner has been
acquitted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
vide judgment dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P/3) of
the charge falsely roped U/s 409 I.P.C. he be
allowed for all the service rules benefits
provisional so for pension and retrial benefits
gratuities outstanding salary since 31.3.1981
of the dismissal relieving order and with
increased benefits salaries dues since date of
acquittal dated 08.12.2004 in view of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and
provisions of law. Issue of writ direction and
order appropriate against the respondents.”
3. On query that whether the dismissal order was passed on
the basis of pendency of criminal case, and further what did
the petitioner do since 31.03.1981 till date. Learned counsel,
without replying to the query, contends that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme
Court in case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujrat1, as the facts
involved are similar.
4. With regard to the laches and delay of more than 27 years
in filing the petition, the learned counsel submits that the
petitioner was waiting for decision in criminal case. The
learned counsel has miserably failed to establish the facts
that the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were
based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in
the departmental case against the petitioner and the charge
before the criminal Court were one and the same.
5. It is well settled principle of law that a decision is
authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom. A little difference in facts or additional
facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of
a decision. (See Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills
Pvt. Ltd. and others)2.
6. In absence of supply of the complete facts, it is
difficult to hold that the dismissal of the petitioner and the
criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts
and the charge in departmental case against the petitioner and
the charge before the criminal Court were one and the same.
Thus, the case of G.M.Tank (Supra) is distinguishable and is
not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
7. It is well settled that High Court in exercise of its
discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the
indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic as the belated
approach may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship
and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. (See
Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. The State of Bihar & Others3,
P.S.Sadasivaswam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu4, State of M.P. &
Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others5, Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
& Others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & another6 and Karnataka Power
Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director &
another Vs. K.Thangappan & another7).
8. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not made out
a case warranting interference with the order dated 31.01.1981,
dismissing the petitioner from service.
9. On the basis of incomplete facts, the petition cannot be
decided. However, if the petitioner is of the view that his
termination order was passed on account of criminal case
pending in a criminal court, the petitioner is at liberty to
make a representation to the authorities concerned. In the
event a representation is made, the concerned authorities shall
consider the representation in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders.
10. In view of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of
at motion stage. No order asto costs.
JUDGE