J P Gautam v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

3. The petitioner, enrolled as a Constable in respondent Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was removed from service on 21st November, 2000. The petitioner filed Writ-A No. 6726/2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but on 10th January, 2019 withdrew the same, stating that against the order dated 21st November, 2000 of his removal, he had alternative statutory remedy provided under Rule 49 of CISF Rules, 1969 and wanted to avail of the same. The writ petition was 2021:DHC:2354-DB accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail of the remedy under Rule 49 supra. The petitioner, after waiting for nearly 4 months from withdrawal of the writ petition aforesaid, on 6th April, 2019 filed a revision petition under Rule 49 supra and which Revision Petition was rejected on 26th July, 2019. After waiting for another 4 months, the petitioner on 18th November, 2019 preferred a departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 25th June, 2020. After waiting for more than a year, this petition impugning the removal from service and rejection of the revision petition, is filed.

4. The argument of counsel for the petitioner before us, is on merits of the matter. It is stated, (a) that the petitioner, on 24th November, 1998 was charged with having entered the office of his superior officer, in a civil dress, at 10:15 hours in the morning and having used abusive language against the said senior officer, pertaining to allocation of his duties; (b) vide enquiry report dated 6th May, 1999, the petitioner was found guilty and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24th June, 1999 imposed the punishment of reduction in Grade Pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect; and, (c) upon the petitioner availing the appellate remedy, the appellate authority issued notice to the petitioner under Rule 47(2)(c)(i) of the CISF Rules aforesaid, to show cause why the punishment imposed should not be enhanced and after considering the representation/response of the petitioner thereto, vide order dated 21st November, 2000 ordered removal of the petitioner from service.

5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is, that the charge against the petitioner was too frivolous and the findings of guilt are based on no evidence whatsoever.

6. However before we go to the merits, the delays on the part of the petitioner strike us in the face. The petitioner, in the last about 32 years since he joined employment of respondents CISF, has not served the respondents CISF for 21 years and has barely served the respondents CISF for about 11 years. Even during the said period of 11 years, on enquiry it is informed that the petitioner was under suspension. Therefrom, it can safely be assumed that the petitioner served the respondents CISF only from 2nd October, 1989 to 24th November, 1998 i.e. till when he was charged i.e. for less than 10 years.

7. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not the petitioner now would be nearing the age of superannuation and why should this petition be entertained, when by the time this petition is decided, the petitioner in all probability would have reached the age of superannuation. The same would amount to the petitioner, in the event of succeeding in the petition, being reinstated in the duty of respondents CISF after having not performed the same for about 20 to 22 years and possibly also becoming entitled to arrears of salary and to pensionary benefits, putting a financial burden on the State of an employee who has not served the State.

8. The counsel for the petitioner states that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner, immediately after the order of dismissal on 21st November, 2000 had filed Writ-A No. 6726/2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and which remained pending till 2019 and whereafter the statutory remedy was availed.

9. We are unable to agree. The petitioner, though filed the writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, impugning his removal, but after keeping it pending for 19 years, withdrew the same to avail of statutory remedies. The petitioner, assisted by Advocates before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as well as before this Court, ought to have known of the availability of statutory remedy and once chose to prefer the writ petition, ought to have pursued the same and even if had failed in the same, ought to have taken the remedies thereagainst. A service personnel cannot be permitted to so keep his claim alive by filing misconceived proceedings and after long withdrawing the same. Our experience of the Courts also shows that whichsoever litigant desires their matter to be heard and to be decided expeditiously, succeeds in the same and it is generally those matters which languish where the litigant shows no hurry or injury requiring urgent redressal. The petitioner, dismissed from his employment, if had no alternative employment or source of livelihood, would have had his matter listed for consideration. Though we do not have before us the proceedings of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but can reasonably assume that the petitioner must not have pursued the same diligently, which caused the same to remain pending for so long.

10. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the relief of the reinstatement has been given after 15 to 25 years of removal also and has referred in this regard to Ex. Link Vishav Priya Singh Vs. UOI 2018 SCC OnLine 9203.

11. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the petitioner therein had filed the writ petition within time and that the petition, though after much delay, was decided on merits, granting the relief. The situation is entirely different here, where the petitioner, after keeping his petition pending for 19 years, instead of arguing it, withdrew the same. The case of the petitioner thus cannot be equated to the facts of the judgment aforesaid.

12. The petitioner, in the 21 years since he has been removed, could not have been without any source of livelihood and would have found and/or been carrying on some other vocation and source of livelihood for himself. There are now no possibilities of the petitioner being restored / reinstated to the post he was holding in respondents CISF. Not only so, if the petitioner were to be so reinstated, the same would rake up the issues of seniority etc. The petitioner, after having been out from a disciplined service concerned with the security of the State and its establishments for the last more than 20 years, would now also be rusted and cannot be expected to perform the duties, for performing which he was employed as a Constable in respondents CISF.

13. The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Gayatri Sarkar Vs. Union of India (2016) 227 DLT 315(DB) and Dharambir Singh Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/3864/2015 on the aspect of proportionality of punishment but which is again on the merits.

14. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss this petition, for the reasons of laches, acquiescence, waiver and long delay on the part of the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J AUGUST 5, 2021 c