Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 488 (JHR)

Farida Khatoon @ Tamnna v. State of Jharkhand

2021-07-05

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the respondent No.5; whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner was dismissed and also the appellate order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the respondent No.4 and order dated 28.01.2006 passed by respondent No.3; whereby the appeal and memorial preferred by the deceased-husband of the petitioner was also rejected. 3. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination has been passed without following principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice was ever served to this petitioner. He further submits that neither any show cause notice nor the enquiry report was ever served to the petitioner’s husband and as such the order suffers from procedural irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that even admitting the case to be true then also the quantum of punishment is highly disproportionate to the offence; as such the respondent-authorities should look into the matter and pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment. Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents with malicious motive sent the notices at the home town though the husband of the petitioner was posted at Jamshedpur at the time of suspension; as such on the ground of procedural irregularity and quantum of punishment the impugned order of punishment as well as the subsequent orders should be quashed and the case may be remitted back to the respondents for passing a fresh order. 4. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. He contended that husband of petitioner was terminated vide order dated 31.05.2004 and thereafter he preferred appeal which was also dismissed and the memorial filed by the petitioner was also dismissed way back on 28.01.2006; however, this case has been filed in the month of March, 2011 and there is no explanation given in the entire pleadings as to why the delinquent employee did not approach this Court during his lifetime and after his death in the year, 2009, the present petitioner approached this Court i.e. after a lapse of more than five year of the last impugned order and one year after the death of the deceased employee which certainly appears to be an afterthought. Mr. Mr. Saboo on the question of procedural irregularity submits that during course of departmental proceeding the delinquent employee did not appear before the disciplinary authority even after repeated intimation. He further draws attention of this Court towards several annexure which transpires that the notices were served at the native place of the deceased employee and Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit clearly transpires that he has received the notice and duly signed in the acknowledgment. He further submits that even though the husband of the petitioner did not appeared, but the disciplinary authorities has taken full caution and recorded the statement of witnesses and passed the impugned order. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the husband of the petitioner was terminated for the charge of indiscipline, dereliction of duty and non-compliance of the order of the superior. The delinquent was further charged of being in drunken condition and used to drink the wine in temple premises due to which there was probability of escalation of communal tension. From record it transpires that during course of departmental proceeding the husband of the petitioner did not appear though he received notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur vide Memo No. 6099 dated 24.10.2003 and inspite of receiving the same, the delinquent did not file any clarification/defence in the departmental proceeding. It further transpires from record that the conducting officer had called the Police Inspector, Sidhgora Circle who enquired into the criminal case and given his opinion vide Memo No. 1301/Sidgora dated 29.09.2003 and the conducting officer has duly recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses and came to conclusion that the husband of the petitioner was taking wine inside the temple and for this reason; tension arose but somehow subsided. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only two witnesses were examined and no independent witness has been examined has no legs to stand in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the conducting officer has duly examined the witnesses and had the delinquent participated in the departmental proceeding he could have easily cross-examined; but he choose to avoid the entire enquiry proceedings even after acknowledging the notice to participate. At the cost of repetition notices were duly served to the petitioner, but not even once he participated in the departmental proceeding rather only after termination he filed appeal and memorial. 7. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the memorial preferred by the delinquent employee was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2006; however he did not choose to challenge the said order. In other words the order of termination attains finality. However, after the death of the deceased employee in the year’2009; his widow preferred this application that too after more than a year of his death. In this regard the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 at paragraph no. 16 has held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. Para-16 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” This is a fit case where the delay cannot be ignored because the delinquent was terminated in the year 2004 and even his appeal was dismissed in the year 2004, thereafter he preferred memorial which was also dismissed in the month of January 2006 and the instant writ application has been preferred by his widow in the year March, 2011, so on this score alone the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed. 8. Even otherwise, Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit clearly transpires that the petitioner has received notice of departmental proceeding; however, he chooses not to participate in the said proceeding, as such it is not a case where there is violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued on the quantum of punishment; however, looking to the offence committed by the deceased-employee being in a disciplined force; the quantum of punishment does not appears to be shocking to the conscious of this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Consequently the instant writ application is dismissed on contest.