SUKHDEO NARAYAN UPADHAYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appellant has played a game with the process of the Court and has taken full advantage to make a mockery of it.

(2.) THE petitioner appellant has filed five cases in two High Courts:

(3.) THE appellant was a Naik with the Railway Protection Force. He was charged with the allegation that 12 bags of mustard seeds were found stolen from a railway wagon which stopped at Maharajpur Railway Station in the District of Sahebganj (then in the State of Bihar). This gave rise to a criminal case. While in the Criminal case, the police submitted a final report which was accepted by the Court, in the departmental proceeding the charges against the appellant were established. He was given a show cause notice on the proposed punishment of removal from service. He moved the Calcutta High Court challenging the disciplinary proceeding. By an interim order of the Calcutta High Court, the appellant was allowed to continue in service. Subsequently, when the writ petition was called to hearing after 16 years the Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the appellant was without jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed. Impliedly it meant that the writ petition, if it was to be filed, it ought to have been filed before the Patna High Court and not before the Calcutta High court. By this time the appellant had retired. He was conscious of the fact that the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court were without jurisdiction. The appellant now approached the Patna High Court for his retirement dues. The Court dismissed the petition but asked the authority concerned to dispose off the appellant 'srepresentation claiming his reitrement benefits. Before the concerned authority the appellant took the plea that the disciplinary proceeding had been stayed by the Calcutta High Court and, thus, the disciplinary proceedings had remained in abeyance. The petitioner was now playing games with technicalities.