HANUMAN P MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present litigation at one hand exposits the prolixity of prayers which is not ordinarily acceptable and appreciable but, a pregnant one, the same reflects the total unconcern of the authorities in dealing with the matters in appeal pertaining to disciplinary proceeding and the lackadaisical propensity in passing the orders with regard to retiral dues.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate for the State has vehemently criticised the number of prayers putforth but, the aforesaid criticism has to be driven to take the back seat when the factual scenario as projected is tested on the anvil of the prismatic premises founded on acceptable sound and clear rationale. The facts which have given rise to this litigation travel a long way to chronicle a sad story how an employee is treated by his higher officials who sit over the files to decide the appeal after 14 years. In the days of Yore a 'yuga' was considered a considerable length of time and any kind of banishment by curse or 'abhishap' never exceeded 14 years. The authorities who decide the appeal or matters relating to employees have to have a sense of serviceability not servility to the concept of red tapism. It is not that they were making a monument to consume so much time but dealing with the appeal where the punishment was imposed withholding increments with cumulative effect on two occasions. It is relevant to state here one punishment was imposed in the year 1980 and other one was in 1986. The wisdom dawned on the appellate authority only in 2000 to decide the appeal and quashed the punishment in one case and reduced it in another case. Be it noted, to decide these kinds of appeal one is not required to have the Solomon's wisdom nor the knowledge of an astute adjudicator but to have some acquaintance with the Rules and common sense. It is a matter of stupendous perplexity and incomprehensible amazement that commonsense only came to the appellate authority after two decades. Indubitably they were not building a Tajmahal or a Konark. The purpose of saying so, is that the authorities dealing with the appeal could have endeavoured and decide the same within a period of six months so that the delinquent employee could have known his fate and do the needful. It is pertinent to state that no explanation has been given for this. It can be regarded as a matter en passent. The routine matter in which the appeal was taken does not deserve acceptance by any norms or standard. A public officer should realise his liabilities to the public at large as he is basically public servant should adopt the attitude of serviceability. It is expected that the Chief Secretary of the State shall look into the aforesaid aspect and would be well advised to issue a circular so that the appeals are not kept pending for such a long period as it has been said long back 'justice delayed justice denied'. Here it is not the case of delay but an enormous delay which create a big concavity in the justice dispensation system where the poise of truth also gets choked and the great 'himalaya' despite its coolness reacts to this kind of proclivity.

(3.) IT is worthnoting here that because of this delay the retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be settled but only could be settled on 6-6-2002. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the delay has rendered in benefit of the petitioner. It is an astounding proposition. It has been said way back what is the purpose of lighting a candle and putting flowers on a dead body when no care has been taken to look after a person when he had life. Conferral of benefits on the petitioner because of the delayed decision in the appeal can not be the redeeming factor.