GURBAX SINGH PATIAL SENIOR ASSISTANT CRIMINAL BRANCH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is working as a Senior Assistant in this Court. Vide order dated December 3, 1988, he has awarded the punishment of censure. In April, 1990, he was over-looked for the grant of two special increments after the examination of his record of service. On August 25, 1993, he approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of "a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant two special increments......"A written statement was filed on behalf of the High Court. It was pointed out that the punishment of censure had been awarded to the present appellant. In the year, 1997, he amended the writ petition so as to even impugn the order dated December 3, 1988 by which the penalty of censure had been awarded to him.

(2.) The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge. It was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had challenged the order of censure, passed on December 3, 1988, after an inordinately long delay. Still further it was also observed that he had failed to avail of the remedy of appeal as provided for under the rules. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the appellant's representation against the order of censure had been rejected on January 14, 1993 without as- signing any reason. There is no limitation for filing a writ petition and that the appeal filed by certain other delinquents has been allowed by this Court. Consequently, even the present appeal should be accepted and the view taken by the learned Single Judge be set aside.

(3.) it is the admitted position that the order awarding the penalty of censure had been passed in December 1988. The representation, which may have been filed by the appellant, has not been produced on the record of the present Letters Patent Appeal. Only a copy of the communication dated January 14, 1993 has been produced. This communication refers to representations dated July 13, 1992 and December 18, 1992. What was the subject matter of these representations What was the ground on which the representations had been submitted and was the order imposing the penalty of censure even challenged Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to answer these questions. In this situation, the mere fact that the representation was rejected on January 14, 1993, cannot entitle the appellant to claim that there was no delay in challenging the order imposing the penalty of censure. Still further, a perusal of the order shows that the subject was the grant of two pre-mature increments. It, thus, appears that in the representations only a claim for the grant of increments had been made there was no challenge to the order of censure. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the appellant had approached the Court within a reasonable time from the date of the imposition of the penalty of censure. Infact, it is the admitted position that the order of censure passed in December 1988 had been challenged for the first time in the year 1977, when the appellant had amended his petition. Still further, for reasons which are not clear and have not been disclosed by the counsel, even a copy of the amended writ petition has not been placed on the appeal paper book. Taking all these facts together, we are of the view that the writ petition, to challenge the order of censure, was highly belated. The appellant had failed to give any reasonable explanation for the delay of almost eight years. In this situation, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.