Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 33 (GUJ)

Satyavan Randhirsingh Jat v. State of Gujarat

2022-01-06

NIRAL R.MEHTA, R.M.CHHAYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10335 of 2021, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Heard Mr. Nigam D. Soni, learned counsel for Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on advance copy, on behalf of the respondents. 3. By way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant - original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: "a. Be pleased to admit this petition; b. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt. 28.4.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Armed Police Constable, Buckle No. 333, A-Company, State Reserve Police Force, Group-12, Gandhinagar. c. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction direct the Respondent Authorities to grant back wages and arrears of pay and allowances and all consequential benefits including revision of pay etc.; d. Pending admission/hearing/final disposal of the present matter, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 to provide copy of order of dismissal from service dt. 28.4.1998 passed against petitioner in the interest of justice. e. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper." 4. Various grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge and it was contended before the learned Single Judge that similarly situated 4 delinquents were ordered to be reinstated by this Court. It is also the case of the appellant that representations were made on 18.3.2021, 19.3.2021 and 24.3.2021, however, no reply was given. 4.1. Mr. Nigam Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, heavily relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648 , more particularly the observations made by the Apex Court in Para 5 thereof. It was contended by Mr. 4.1. Mr. Nigam Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, heavily relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648 , more particularly the observations made by the Apex Court in Para 5 thereof. It was contended by Mr. Soni that not having given the benefit which is otherwise derived by other similarly situated persons would result into discrimination. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the judgments of this Court rendered in SCA No. 2224 of 2012 as well as SCA No. 8087 of 2017. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Soni that the Appeal requires consideration. Learned counsel further contended that in other cases, the order of dismissal has been converted into that of order of voluntary retirement which would give some financial benefit as a recourse to the appellant, who hails from poor strata. 5. Per contra, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has supported the impugned order and has contended that the Appeal is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other and further contentions and/or grounds are raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, certain admitted facts emerge from the record. According to the appellant, he is born on 1.4.1963 and has studied upto 9th standard. The record indicates that the appellant joined SRP Unit on 1.2.1983 and was allotted to Group-7, Nadiad for the purpose of acquiring training. The charge-sheet dated 2.12.1992 was issued against the appellant by respondent No. 3 for holding departmental inquiry into the charge, inter-alia, that at the time of appointment, the appellant has allegedly produced false school leaving certificate. It was also alleged that the real date of birth of the appellant is 1.4.1960 and as such, the appellant has failed in 8th standard. The Inquiry Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 16.3.1996 and a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 30.3.1996. Ultimately, the same culminated into an order of dismissal from service dated 24.3.1998. However, it is a matter of fact that neither before the learned Single Judge nor before this Hon'ble Court in Appeal, the order has been produced by the appellant. 8. Ultimately, the same culminated into an order of dismissal from service dated 24.3.1998. However, it is a matter of fact that neither before the learned Single Judge nor before this Hon'ble Court in Appeal, the order has been produced by the appellant. 8. The present writ petition came to be filed praying for the reliefs claimed for as quoted herein-above in the month of June, 2020 i.e. after almost 23 years from the date of dismissal from service. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 and has come to the conclusion that while extending the benefit to a particular set of employees on a premise of other identically situated person, the same would be subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of latches and delays. The learned Single Judge has also further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, reported in JT 2020 (1) SC 591 and after considering the said facts, has observed, thus, in Para 8 and 9; (8) It is held by the Apex Court that "even otherwise, it is a settled canon of common law that equity acts in personam and not in rem". It is also observed that consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. It is also held that even the Civil Suit would have been barred by limitation. Thus, the petitioner did not even bother to collect or preserve his dismissal order, and only woke up when other vigilant codelinquents approached this Court and this Court had passed orders in their favour. The petitioners, in whose favour the orders are passed, were vigilant of their rights, and they had challenged the dismissal orders at appropriate time. Thus, the petitioner did not even bother to collect or preserve his dismissal order, and only woke up when other vigilant codelinquents approached this Court and this Court had passed orders in their favour. The petitioners, in whose favour the orders are passed, were vigilant of their rights, and they had challenged the dismissal orders at appropriate time. (9) As noted hereinabove, the petitioner is neither having his dismissal order and nor he has challenged the same at the relevant time. He has been lackadaisical of even preserving his dismissal order. Thus, in light of the law prescribed by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person who has slept over the wrongs." 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav (Supra) to buttress his arguments that as the appellant comes from lower strata of service in SRP, only because he could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. In facts of this case, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav (Supra) would not be applicable. 10. It is not a question that the benefit of any scheme of the State Government is to be extended to the appellant. In addition to that, the appellant has already accepted the order of dismissal for almost 23 years and hence, the appellant cannot now be permitted to question the same in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge, more particularly the observations made in Para 8 and 9 of the judgment and order impugned before us. 12. In view of aforesaid, the Appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Since the Appeal is dismissed, the connected civil application, if any, also stands dismissed.