Shri Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the..........by respondent no. 3, dismissing the petitioner from service and for realisation of a sum of rs. 10,637/- in one lump sum from the petitioner.2. the facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are set out as under:the petitioner while posted as chief instructor, i.t.i,, gua, was served with a memo dated 29th july, 1987 vide which he was put under suspension and, thereafter, a charge sheet was issued vide memo no. 2489 dated 3rd september, 1987 directing him to submit his show cause to the enquiry officer. the charges against the petitioner were of committing fraud and forgery, causing losses to the respondents and also for preparing false and forged records. it was also pointed out that the petitioner himself vide letters/applications dated 14th june, 1984 and 14th july, 1987 accepted that he committed forgery for his personal gain. the petitioner, filed his show cause on 26th november, 1987 before the enquiry officer and, thereafter, the witnesses were examined from 14th december. 1987 to 18th december, 1987 and also filed several documents, which were marked as annexures 7 to 10. according to him, he gave several letters and complaints and also sought for certain documents.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18th February, 1989, issued by respondent No. 3, dismissing the petitioner from service and for realisation of a sum of Rs. 10,637/- in one lump sum from the petitioner.

2. The facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are set out as under:

The petitioner while posted as Chief Instructor, I.T.I,, Gua, was served with a memo dated 29th July, 1987 vide which he was put under suspension and, thereafter, a charge sheet was issued vide memo No. 2489 dated 3rd September, 1987 directing him to submit his show cause to the enquiry officer. The charges against the petitioner were of committing fraud and forgery, causing losses to the respondents and also for preparing false and forged records. It was also pointed out that the petitioner himself vide letters/applications dated 14th June, 1984 and 14th July, 1987 accepted that he committed forgery for his personal gain. The petitioner, filed his show cause on 26th November, 1987 before the enquiry officer and, thereafter, the witnesses were examined from 14th December. 1987 to 18th December, 1987 and also filed several documents, which were marked as Annexures 7 to 10. According to him, he gave several letters and complaints and also sought for certain documents but no action was taken. Finally based on enquiry report, the services of the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 18th February 1989 under the signature of Director, Employment & Training, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 3). Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal on 10th April, 1989 before the Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, which is still pending for disposal.

3. The petitioner has raised the following grounds to maintain the writ petition and to set aside the impugned order. According to him, he was not supplied the copy of enquiry report and, thus, the principles of natural justice were violated and the order was not commensurate to the guilt.

4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the principles of natural justice were complied with and the petitioner was instructed to contact personally to the In-charge, who will make available the documents as desired. It has also been stated that most of the documents did not relate to him and not relevant for the purposes of disciplinary enquiry. It was also stated that the petitioner himself twice gave in writing that he accepted his guilt to the conducting officer in the departmental proceeding and it was in these background that no show cause notice was given to him. It has also been stated that it was a case of fraud and forgery and the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation and, accordingly, he was dismissed from service even though he had attained superannuation. It has been specifically denied that the petitioner made any request for enquiry report.

5. I have considered the submissions as well as the argument of the rival sides. It appears that admittedly the petitioner accepted in writing vide letters/applications dated 14th June, 1984 and 14th July, 1987 about the preparation of forged records. Even in the impugned order before the disciplinary authority it has been specifically recorded that the petitioner in writing admitted his guilt and the order of dismissal was passed after considering the entire set of charges and enquiry report, in which he had fully participated without any objection and was, accordingly, dismissed from service and further an amount of Rs. 10,637/- has been ordered to be recovered in one lump sum towards the loss. The contention raised by the petitioner about non-compliance of the principles of natural justice is on the face of it incorrect for the sole reason that the petitioner was given show cause notice to which he duly replied and the witnesses were examined and cross-examined and then only the enquiry report was given to the disciplinary authority. It is further relevant to point out that the petitioner vide his own letters and applications admitted his guilt before the authorities, including the disciplinary authority, and confirmed the charges levelled against him and, thus, there was neither any request for the enquiry report nor the charges were denied from his side and the same has been duly recorded in the impugned order dated 18th February, 1989. The petitioner retired by the time he was dismissed from service and, thus, even otherwise the order impugned is of no consequence. In any case, the present writ petition suffers from gross latches and delay and has been filed beyond a reasonable period i.e. after ten years from the date of issuance of the impugned order. Even the appeal was preferred in the year, 1989 itself and, thus, if the petitioner was aggrieved either by the impugned order or the non-disposal of the appeal, he should have filed the writ petition within a reasonable period.

6. In the aforesaid background, the present writ petition has become stale and suffers from gross latches and delay and even otherwise it is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, without any order as to costs.