TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Employee's 5-year delayed writ petition against dismissal rejected for unexplained delay and failure to exhaust remedies</h1> <h3>State of Jammu & Kashmir Versus R.K. Zalpuri and Ors.</h3> State of Jammu & Kashmir Versus R.K. Zalpuri and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition2. Non-Compliance with Rule 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19563. Review of High Court's DecisionSummary:1. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition:The first Respondent was dismissed from service on 6th September 1999, but he filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal only on 18th February 2006, after a lapse of almost five and a half years. The State Government raised a preliminary objection regarding this delay and laches, arguing that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The learned Single Judge did not address this issue, and the Division Bench also failed to consider it adequately. The Supreme Court emphasized that delay and laches are significant factors in exercising discretionary powers u/Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited various precedents to underline that unexplained delay can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition, especially when it causes prejudice to the opposite party. The Supreme Court concluded that the Respondent's claim was stale and should not have been entertained by the High Court.2. Non-Compliance with Rule 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956:The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the show cause notice issued to the employee was not accompanied by the copies of the proceedings as required u/r 34, thereby denying the employee a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Division Bench modified this order, stating that the State Government could proceed against the Respondent after complying with Rule 34. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision to quash the dismissal order on this ground was not incorrect but emphasized that the issue of delay and laches should have been addressed first.3. Review of High Court's Decision:The State Government filed a review application, arguing that the High Court had committed a palpable error by not considering the delay and laches. The Division Bench dismissed the review application, stating that it could not sit in appeal and the parameters of review were not met. The Supreme Court referred to several judgments to clarify that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should only address patent errors. The Court found that the High Court had indeed committed a manifest error by not addressing the delay and laches, which warranted a review.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and orders. The Court held that the Respondent's writ petition should not have been entertained due to the unexplained delay and laches, and the claim was stale. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
