Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 312 (HP)

Madan Lal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-12

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, the appellant has laid challenge to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 2929 of 2008 dated 21.9.2010. Vide judgment under appeal, learned Single Judge on merit had dismissed the petition so filed by the petitioner by holding that as the petitioner belonging to a disciplined force, he was required to be vigilant and it was expected from him to discharge his duties diligently since he was posted at the official residence of His Holiness, Dalai Lama. Thereafter learned Single judge held as under in para 6 and 7 of the judgment:- "However, before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that the petitioner was required to be sent for Intermediate Course immediately after the expiry of the punishment period. The case of the petit8ioner was though considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 20.2.1995 to undergo Intermediate Course, however, his case was not recommended due t currency of punishment. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to send the petitioner for Intermediate Course, if not already sent. There shall be no order as to costs." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the judgment passed by learned Single Judge was partially in favour of the appellant/petitioner, however, as the petitioner already stood superannuated as on the date when the judgment was announced, direction issued by learned Single Judge that the petitioner be sent for Intermediate Course immediately after the expiry of punishment period was totally misconceived, as direction ought to have been issued with retrospective effect, more so taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had filed original application as far back as in the year 1995, which ultimately was decided by learned Single Judge, i.e., CWP (T) No. 2929 of 2008 after the original application stood transferred to the High Court, as a result of abolition of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the relevant time. 3. No other point was urged. 4. Records demonstrate that review petition on similar grounds was filed by the petitioner before learned Single Judge, which stood dismissed on 28.4.2011 on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. 5. 3. No other point was urged. 4. Records demonstrate that review petition on similar grounds was filed by the petitioner before learned Single Judge, which stood dismissed on 28.4.2011 on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. 5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel as well as learned Advocate General and have also perused the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, as also the records of the case. 6. A perusal of the original application demonstrates that the petitioner had initially approached the Court praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) That the impugned punishment order dated 30-9-92 passed by the S.P. Kangra at Dharmsala, Annexure A-1, and further order passed by the D.I.G. Northern Range, Kangra at Dharmsala, dated 9-6-93, Annexure A-2, as well as the further order passed by the Director General of Police, H.P. Shimla, dated 28-12-93, Annexure A-3, maintaining the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, may please be quashed and set aside and the arrears resulting from the stoppage of the said increment may be ordered to be released to the applicant forthwith. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to immediately depute the applicant for Intermediate School Course which has just now commenced with effect from 1-10-1995, and to permit the applicant to complete and pass the same." 7. Learned Single Judge vide judgment under challenge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was rightly held guilty from absence from duty, as he belongs to the disciplined force, he was required to be vigilant and it was expected from him to discharge his duties diligently since he was posted at the official residence of His Holiness, Dalai Lama. 8. During the course of arguments learned Senior Counsel for the appellant could not point out from records that said findings returned by learned Single Judge were either perverse or were not borne out from the records of the case. 9. 8. During the course of arguments learned Senior Counsel for the appellant could not point out from records that said findings returned by learned Single Judge were either perverse or were not borne out from the records of the case. 9. As far as the directions passed by learned Single Judge in para 6 of the said judgment are concerned, in our considered view, the same was not only innocuous, but in view of the fact that the petition so filed by the petitioner stood decided against him, he cannot be permitted to assail the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that learned Single Judge should have had directed the respondents to send the petitioner for Intermediate Course immediately after the expiry period of punishment. This we say for the reason that it was not the grievance of the petitioner so raised in the petition decided by learned Single Judge that even after the expiry of punishment period, he was not being sent for Intermediate Course. The reliefs which were prayed for in the original application/transfer of writ petition have already been quoted hereinabove. His challenge there was to the impugned punishment order, which in fact has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. 10. Further, we do not find from the record that during the pendency of the petition any amendment was made in the same praying therein for the relief that respondents be directed to send him for Intermediate Course, as the period of punishment was over. In case the petitioner was having any grievance in this regard, then he should have had initiated necessary proceedings in this regard which thereafter could have been adjudicated by the appropriate Court of law after hearing the parties concerned. That being so, we do not find that appellant/petitioner had any enforceable cause, which stood wrongly denied to him by the learned Single Judge. Further, we have not been apprised by learned Senior Counsel as to why even after the expiry of currency period of punishment, petitioner was not sent for Intermediate Course. There may be cogent reasons available with the employer not to do so, however, as this was not an issue raised in the original application, we deem it proper not to dwell any further on the same. There may be cogent reasons available with the employer not to do so, however, as this was not an issue raised in the original application, we deem it proper not to dwell any further on the same. In view of above, as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment so assailed by way of present appeal, we dismiss the appeal, so also pending applications, if any. No order as to costs.