Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6995/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6995 of 2010
=========================================================
DUSHYANT
BABUBHAI RAJPUT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DG CHAUHAN for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 22/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“[A]
Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to
quash and set aside the dismissal order dated 25-10-2006 in the
interest of justice and direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in service on his original post as Assistant Engineer
(Civil) with full back wages with continuity of service and with all
consequential benefits.
[B]
Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the
petitioner to discharge his duties and functions as Assistant
Engineer (Civil) and restrain the respondents from interfering in
discharging his duties and functions as Assistant Engineer (Civil).
[C]
……”
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a
Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the respondent-authority and he has
been working as such for the last 23 years. As the petitioner wanted
to go abroad, he made an application dated 26.02.2001 to the
respondent-authority to sanction leave from 19.04.2001 to
01.07.2001, which was ultimately granted by the
respondent-authority. Thereafter, the petitioner made another
application for extension of leave from 02.07.2001 to 16.02.2002 on
some personal ground. Pursuant thereto, the concerned
respondent-authority forwarded the same to the higher authority for
sanctioning the leave of 231 days i.e. from 02.07.2001 to
16.02.2002. However, no decision was taken on the said application.
2.1. On
12.02.2002, the petitioner made another application to the
respondent-authority for Half Pay Leave on the ground of ailment of
his wife for the period upto 12.05.2002. Pursuant thereto, the
concerned respondent-authority forwarded the same to the higher
authorities for sanctioning of the said leave. As the petitioner did
not report for the duty, the respondent authority on 23.09.2004
issued charge sheet for unauthorized absenteeism. The petitioner vide
letter dated 24.12.2004 requested for time to file his reply. But the
respondent authority did not grant time to file his reply.
Thereafter, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner
for the alleged charges levelled against him and on completion of
inquiry the petitioner was held guilty for the alleged charges
levelled against him. The respondent-authority on the basis of the
Inquiry Report, dismissed the petitioner from the service vide order
dated 25.10.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The impugned order under challenge is of the year 2006
and it is sought to be challenged after about three years.
Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to
a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of
India & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC. 1330, wherein it
has been held that the cause of action continues from month to month
and that if the petition is filed beyond reasonable period, the Court
would reject the same or restrict the relief. Similar principle has
been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India &
Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and keeping in mind the principle laid down
in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that the petition
deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay itself.
5. Consequently,
the petition is summarily dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top