Ranbir Kundu v. State Of Haryana & ORS

LPA No.1714 of 2014 (O&M) -1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1714 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.01.2015 Ranbir Kundu ...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present:

Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The appellant has filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 14.2.2002 vide which punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him, was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits while passing the following order:

"In the light of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of more than 11 years, the writ petition itself, on this ground, deserves to be dismissed. On merits also, on going through the impugned order where due opportunity was given to the petitioner and after the report of the Enquiry Officer agreeing with the same, the punishing authority has proceeded to pass a detailed and well-reasoned order imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is in consonance and in accordance with the Statutory Rules. That apart, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before his excellency the Governor of Haryana has also been rejected on 3.2.2004."

Though there is a delay of 41 days in refiling and 69 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed applications (C.M. No.3654-55RAJEEV THAKRAL 2015.01.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

LPA No.1714 of 2014 (O&M) -2LPA-2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and have gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not explain the inordinate delay of over 11 years in filing the writ petition challenging the order of punishment. He also could not point out any procedural irregularity in the enquiry or violation of principles of natural justice before imposing the punishment.

Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE 22.01.2015 rajeev RAJEEV THAKRAL 2015.01.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh