PRITHVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22. 12. 2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders Annex. 62 dated 4. 5. 1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex. 64 dated 21. 7. 1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.

(2.) THE gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It is deposed of affidavit on affidavit by the petitioner that Shri Vinayak M. Joshi told him that he will require 2-3 months for setting the copies typed and preparing the writ petition and the petitioner was directed to come again for signing the papers in the last week of October or in November 1992. When in the month of November 1992 the petitioner came to Jodhpur, his Advocate Shri Vinayak M. Joshi was not available at Jodhpur. THErefore, he again came to Jodhpur in December 1992. However, when he met Shri Joshi he was informed by Shri Joshi that his appears are still not ready and so he should come in the month of January 1993; and, in the month of January 1993, he was again asked to come in the month of February 1993. In these circumstances, he enquired of his Advocate Mr. Joshi about limitation in the matter but Shri Joshi told him that in writ petition no limitation is prescribed.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that first of all, the delay in filing the writ petition is required to be condoned because as narrated by the petitioner he handed over the papers to the Advocate and paid the fee for filing the writ petition before the Court but it was not filed and assurance was given to him that petition will be filed and as and when his presence will be required in the proceedings he will be called. IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshi Lal & Anr. (1981 (3) SCR 509), while granting the special leave petition, it was observed as under: " The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. IT is no part of his job. "