GOPICHAND BHARGAVA Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER a gross delay of about 18 years, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to quash the order dated December 20, 1974 whereby his services were terminated.

(2.) THE petitioner averred in the writ petition that since he was led in a trap case, impugned order of termination came to be passed by the respondents. Vide order dated March 26, 1984 the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge (CBI Cases) Rajasthan, Jaipur but the High Court acquitted him on January 31, 1992. An appeal thereafter was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 seeking relief of reinstatement on May 19, 1992 but no need was paid to it. After filing supplementary appeal the petitioner served notice for demand of justice and thereafter preferred instant writ petition.

(3.) AS the respondents have not produced the alleged letter dated September 21, 1975 and other record relating to payment of outstanding amount to the petitioner, I am unable to accept this contention that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the impugned order. The only question that requires consideration now is as to whether the delay of 18 years in filing the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case is fatal or not?