NATHULAL Vs. R S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 21 -10 -1982 Anx. 3 the petitioner's services were terminated by the Divisional Manager and the same order upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority and his appeal was dismissed on 3 -6 1983 Anx. 6.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents raised preliminary objections. First of all he submitted that the writ petition was filed with inordinate delay. The appellant order was passed on 3 -6 -1983 and the writ petition was filed on 20 -2 -1984. When he referred to paras 6 and 7 he urged that it is strange that the petitioner did not receive the letters said to have been sent to him by his counsel, although the petitioner's letters were received by his counsel. From paras 6 and 7 it appears that there was some exchange of communications between the petitioner and his counsel but it was on account of non -communication that the petitioner could not present the petition and the petitioner had to come himself to the counsel for filing of the writ petition. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the petitioner in paras 6 and 7. Apart from that, I do not find such a delay on the part of the petitioner which may deny him to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder in which he has stated that the petitioner wanted to examine in all five witnesses and two witnesses have been examined. It is in this light that the ground has been taken in the aforesaid paras, the language used no doubt is to the effect that an opportunity of leading any evidence was not allowed to the petitioner which is incorrect. The petitioner in fact did examine some witnesses and he examined himself in his defence. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paras shows that they are some what misleading. It may be stated that the ground has not been taken in that sense in which the language leads the reader to, when it is read along with the appellate order. The appellate order specifically stated that the petitioner was examined on 20 -5 -82 and thereafter he did not produce any other witness That shows an opportunity to adduce evidence was given to the petitioner in his defence. In a writ petition filed under Article 226, it is of course the duty of the petitioner to state the facts precisely and accurately and no such statement of fact should be made which may be misleading. However, in the circumstances of the case, I am ignoring the objection taken on behalf of the respondents.