Tulsi Sao vs The State of Jharkhand

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, after 18 years of the order of punishment dated 28.8.1995, Annexure 2, imposing reduction of pay scale to his initial pay scale with further condition that he would not get the benefit of promotion for five years, has preferred this writ petition challenging the same.

Apparently, the petitioner has became wise on account of judgment rendered in the case of Manohar Toppo in WP(S) No. 1315/2003 dated 5.8.2009, Annexure-3.

From reading of Annexure 3, it appears that the said petitioner, who was a police constable had approached this Court for quashing of an order dated 21.1.2003 which deprived him the salary for the period from 17.8.1995 till 25.1.2003 during which he was under suspension. The learned single Judge noticed the fact of another person Rama Shankar Singh, who had preferred a writ petition earlier in 1999 and thereafter also pursued another writ petition in 2001, whereafter the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was modified and reduced in 2003 vide order dated 21.1.2003, however, with a rider that said person would not get the salary for the period under which he was put under suspension. Incidentally, the present petitioner was also proceeded departmentally for dereliction of his duty along with two other persons. While, it appears that said two persons pursued their grievances in relation to the punishment and also relating to withholding of salary for the period of suspension, which was considered and allowed in WP(S) No. 1315/2003 by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 5.8.2009 but the present petitioner sat over the matter since 1995 and has chosen now to challenge the order of punishment. The sequence of events in respect of other two persons are also distinct from the case of present petitioner in whose case the order of punishment was never earlier challenged or modified.

It further appears that the petitioner had himself filed a writ petition being WP(S) No. 6693/2010 earlier and prayed for quashing of the punishment order dated 28.8.1995 and thereafter instructed the counsel to withdraw the said writ petition. The present writ petition has again been filed to challenge the said order of punishment passed in 1995. Therefore, the petitioner has allowed his remedy to be extinguished in view of deliberate delay and laches on his part in pursuing his grievances before the court of law. The delay and acquiescence on the part of a person, who also claims parity in treatment vis-a-vis other, who has been granted the benefit by the judgment earlier by the competent court, are sufficient ground to refused the discretionary remedy available to this Court. In this regard judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Arbind Kumar Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18639/2012 dated 17.10.2014 is of guidance.

Therefore, the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, is not entitled for any relief. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.