Delay and laches, plus independent disciplinary findings, barred interference with a dismissal despite later criminal acquittal.

A disciplinary dismissal challenged after exhaustion of departmental appeal and revision was held barred by delay and laches because later mercy petitions and repeated representations did not extend limitation. The court also noted that departmental proceedings operate independently from criminal prosecution; acquittal in the criminal case, particularly where prosecution witnesses turned hostile, did not by itself displace findings recorded on evidence in the enquiry. As no irrelevant material, non-consideration of relevant material, or Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown, the dismissal was upheld and no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal order and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. (ii) Whether the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case entitled her to interference with the departmental dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal order and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The dismissal order was passed after a regular departmental inquiry, followed by a show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner's written reply. Statutory remedies of appeal and revision had already been exhausted long before the writ petition was filed. The later mercy petition and representation did not revive or extend the time for challenging the original orders, and repeated representations could not enlarge limitation.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred by delay and laches and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case entitled her to interference with the departmental dismissal.

Analysis: The departmental inquiry and the criminal prosecution operated in different fields. The inquiry was founded on evidence recorded before the enquiry officer, which was assessed independently on the basis of relevant material. The criminal acquittal, especially where prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, did not by itself negate the findings of misconduct reached in disciplinary proceedings. The impugned decision was not shown to be based on irrelevant material, to have ignored relevant material, or to be irrational in the Wednesbury sense.

Conclusion: The criminal acquittal did not warrant interference with the departmental dismissal.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal from service was upheld, and no ground for judicial interference was made out either on delay and laches or on the merits of the disciplinary findings.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary order supported by relevant evidence will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction merely because the employee is later acquitted in a criminal case, and stale challenges cannot be revived through subsequent representations.

---