2015 (10) TMI 2855 - SC - Indian Laws

Employee's 5-year delayed writ petition against dismissal rejected for unexplained delay and failure to exhaust remedies

State of Jammu & Kashmir Versus R.K. Zalpuri and Ors.

SC set aside HC judgment that entertained a writ petition challenging dismissal from service. The employee was dismissed in 1999 but approached HC only ... Delay in filing petition - Denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent official - Non-Compliance with Rule 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 - HELD THAT:- There was a manifest error by the High Court, for it had really not taken note of the stand and stance that was eloquently put by the State as regards the delay and laches. The averments in the writ petition were absolutely silent and nothing had been spelt out why the delay had occurred. The Single Judge, as stated earlier had chosen not to address the said issue. The Division Bench in appeal addressed the submission, totally being oblivious of the ground pertaining to delay and laches clearly stated in the memorandum of appeal, and modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge as if that was the sole submission. It needs no special emphasis to state that in the obtaining factual matrix, the application for review did not require delving deep into the factual matrix to find out the error. It was not an exercise of an appellate jurisdiction as is understood in law. It can be stated with certitude that it was a palpable error, for the principal stand of the State was not addressed to and definitely it had immense significance and hence, the same deserved to be addressed to. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ Petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice. The present case, need less to emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It deserved to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ Petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present. The judgment and orders passed by the High Court are set aside - 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 - Appeal allowed. 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.