Suresh Chandra Kataria vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard.

The instant special (writ) is preferred against the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7038/2018 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

The special appeal is delayed by 125 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred on behalf of the appellant to condone the delay.

We have considered the grounds set out in the application for condoning the delay occasioned in filing the special appeal and so also the merits of the case. We find that the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are absolutely unconvincing and unacceptable. That apart, the petitioner has no ground so as to assail the impugned order on merits also.

The petitioner, who was a Government servant, was subjected to a departmental inquiry and after being found guilty of the charges, was inflicted a major penalty of stoppage of one grade annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 01.03.2008. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 02.12.2008. The petitioner filed a review against the said order of punishment. After more than 9 years thereof i.e. in the year 2018. Condonation of delay in filing of the review petition was sought on the ground that the petitioner laid hands on some documents in the year 2015 under the Right to Information Act. The review application was rejected by the reviewing authority by order dated 02.02.2018.

On going through the pleadings of the writ petition and the prayer clauses thereof, we are of the view that the highly belated challenge laid by the petitioner to the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellant authority by filing a review application as late as in the year 2018, was rightly repelled by the reviewing authority. Even if the fictitious assertion made by the petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition that he could procure some material documents in the year 2015, is considered to be correct, then also, it is clear that the review petition came to be filed three years later. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in observing that the petitioner failed to explain the gross and undue delay of over 10 years in questioning the validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and that unexplained delay and laches dis-entitled the petitioner to the relief claimed for.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain this special appeal (writ) on merits as well.

Thus, the special appeal (writ) is dismissed as being delayed and on merits as well.