KAMALAKAR SHANKAR KATE Vs. PRINCIPAL TRAINING COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was in service of the Education Department of the Government of Bombay on or about 6th December 1948. According to the petitioner, he was made permanent on the expiry of the probationary period. In about 1950, the petitioner was transferred as a clerk in the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar, where he served for about a year. The petitioner was then re-transferred to Sangamner and at the latter place he worked in the office of the Principal, Training College for men for about three years. The petitioner was again transferred to the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar and the petitioner's next assignment was that of a clerk in the Government Girls School, Ahmednagar, where the petitioner worked for about seven or eight months. In April 1956, the petitioner was again posted as a clerk in the office of the Principal, Training College for men at Sangamner.

(2.) It appears that while the petitioner was working at the place, the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence of forgery. It would appear that the explanation of the petitioner was then taken and the petitioner admitted his guilt. But the petitioner now disputes that he ever admitted having committed the offence of forgery. On the 27th of May 1957 a notice of discharge was given to the petitioner and it is in the following terms:-

(3.) On behalf of the opponents, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Chandrachud and his contention is that this petition must be dismissed in limine on the ground that there has been gross delay in presenting this petition. The facts in that connection are briefly these: The order of discharge is dated the 27th of May 1957 and the petition was filed in this Court on the 25th of October 1957 i.e. after a period of five months. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner had averred that the petitioner did not file this petition earlier, because he was lying ill, was confused and had no sufficient funds to take legal advice and pursue the matter. He also averred that the petitioner was lying ill, suffering from 'flu' which prevailed in virulent form. But the delay which occurred in presenting the petition was explained by him in an affidavit filed by him on the 16th of November 1957. In that affidavit the petitioner stated that after the order of discharge became effective, he made efforts to persuade the authorities to withdraw the order of discharge. He also stated that the authorities were not persuaded to withdraw the order of discharge as a result of which he received a shock and was in a confused state of mind for some two or three weeks. He then stated that he had an attack of 'flu' which made him bed-ridden and this continued till August of 1957. He then stated that his wife was in bed and since he had to nurse her during her illness, he had no peace of mind. He then went on to state that his wife gave birth to a son on or about 20th September 1957, but to his misfortune, the child died, as a result of which his wife got a shock and was confined to bed and continued to be in a serious condition until the middle of October 1957. He says that as a result of these incidents there was complete distruption in his family life and when he went to Bombay, he was told that the Courts were closed and the petition could not be filed and further that the petition could be filed only after the re-opening of the Court, and it is in that way that the petition was filed on the 25th of October 1957. Mr. Chandrachud's contention is that it was open to the petitioner to file the petition as expeditiously as possible and there is no good ground to show that the petitioner was prevented from filing the petition earlier. Now, in all petitions - whether under Article 226 or 227 - it is a settled principle that a petitioner wanting to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 must come up for relief as quickly as possible, and looking to the long lapse of time which has taken place between the date of the order of discharge and the date of the filing of the petition, it cannot be said reasonably that the petitioner has come up with this petition as expeditiously as possible. But in this case there are some peculiar circumstances. That the petitioner had a shock as a result of the order of discharge is understandable. But if that had been the only reason for the delay, there was no excuse whatever why the petitioner did not file the petition before the 25th October 1957. But the petitioner has to face a number of misfortunes. He himself was taken ill. His wife, too, became ill, but this was not all. He lost his newly born child. It is possible that on account of the various incidents, which I have mentioned above, the petitioner was not mentally at peace with himself and that is why there was delay in filing this petition. Now, there is no particular period before which a petition ought to be filed, and having regard to the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit of the 16th of November 1957, we are prepared to say, on the facts of this case that there is not such a gross delay on the part of the petitioner that we should dismiss this petition solely on the ground of dalay. We have, therefore, decided to deal with the petition on its merits :-