KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for the following reliefs :

(2.) The facts, which emerge out from the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, show that the petitioner was recruited to the post of Constable on 11-11-1962 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1968. A FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 148, 149, 121, 121-A, 122, 395 and 427, IPC, Section 3, Police Act and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 read with Section 5 of Defence of India Act on 22-5-1973. He was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973. The petitioner along with seven other was prosecuted in S.T. No. A-48 of 1974 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, but he was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 4-8-1979 as all the witnesses of fact turned hostile. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred claim petition No. 1008 (T)/V/80 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow for setting aside the dismissal order. The claim petition was however dismissed by the Tribunal on 3-3-1981.

(3.) The main relief claimed in the writ petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with salary and back-wages and also to pay him pension and post-retirement benefits from the date of superannuation. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973. It appears that he did not challenge the dismissal order immediately but filed a claim petition before the Tribunal after he was acquitted by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge on 4-8-1979. The claim petition filed on the year 1980 was also dismissed on 3-3-1981. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service and his claim petition has also been dismissed, the relief sought by the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with back-wages cannot be granted. Realising the aforesaid difficulty, the petitioner filed an amendment application on 9-10-1998 wherein, it was prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to add a prayer to the effect that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the removal order dated 14-11-1973 and judgment and order dated 3-3-1981 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973 and the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 3-3-1981. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid orders and allowed the judgment of the Tribunal to become final. The writ petition was filed on 27-1-1998 i.e. after 17 years of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. In the writ petition no relief for quashing of the dismissal order or quashing of the judgment of the Tribunal had been claimed. The said relief was claimed by way of amendment application, which was filed on 9-10-1998. The writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Shri R.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been representing to the State Government and therefore he did not file the writ petition earlier. In our opinion, making of representation is no explanation for the unusual long delay, which has occurred in filing the writ petition. After the judgment of the Tribunal had been pronounced, the petitioner should have immediately challenged the same before the appropriate forum. Mere filing of representations could not in any way alter or set aside the judgment rendered by Public Services Tribunal.