Gurjant Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS
-1-
" #$%$ &'
(
(
*( +%( ) )
((() )
,'
-. ,( ) ,
).
,
)./ 0.1 ! ""# $ % & setting aside of orders dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-2), 21.09.2013 (Annexure P-4), 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-6), 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-9) and 21.10.2019 (Annexure P-11) whereby he has been subjected to punishment of forfeiture of 4 increments. "
The petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of 7 years increments vide order dated 28.07.2011. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2013. He preferred revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2014. The petitioner was awarded punishment on account of registration of FIR No. 69 dated 12.04.2011 against him under Section 223 and 224 IPC. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.05.2015 found him guilty and awarded sentence of simple imprisonment of 2 months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
-2- '
The petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur assailing judgment of conviction and order of punishment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 12.07.2017 set-aside judgment of conviction on the ground that sanction granted by SSP, Sangrur was defective. (
The petitioner preferred mercy petition before the Government. Additional Chief Secretary vide order dated 21.09.2019 reduced the quantum of departmental punishment from 7 years' forfeiture of increments to 4 years forfeiture of increments.
The petitioner has preferred instant petition seeking setting-aside of orders passed by the police authorities and modification of order passed by Additional Chief Secretary whereby he has reduced the quantum of punishment. The impugned order was passed on 21.09.2019 and since then period of 5 years has elapsed.
On being asked, Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate submits that petitioner could not approach this Court on account of Covid-19 and his involvement in another criminal case. The petitioner has served legal notice upon respondents seeking setting-aside of departmental proceedings. *
He has placed on record orders passed by trial Court as well this Court disclosing that the petitioner was involved in another case and proceedings against him were set-aside by this Court. The petitioner was not dismissed from service and he diligently followed proceedings before Courts with respect to criminal case registered against him. +
No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be
-3exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non- deliberate delay.
%
/
!
, !
$ !
!
! "
#
"
$
! - %!
"#$% #$&'%$ (
)* $ '
+
, - $ ! !
! . , & !
, !
/!
!
, , !
-4- % $ % .
/ ..
01 2'
3!! %
'*
$ ! %& '
$
#
'
# $
(
) "
!
$
*
$
! " "
+
! ,
%
-
"
#+
( - %+
, 4%5 ! , .!
.0 .
,!, $!
.. ! !!
, ! !
,
!,.! .
1!
/ . '
!
$ !
-5-
$
/
$ $ !
'
!
0
'
$
'
!
' $ (
"
& '
1
!
2
" 1 !
!
! $
(
$
'
!
!
$ '
(
3$
" "
!
*
-6-
'
$ #
1 9.
In the absence of any plausible reason advanced by petitioner for filing instant petition after almost 5 years of passing of impugned order, this Court finds that present petition suffers from delay and laches. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 10.
Dismissed. 2+
"2"( 2,
).3
3 &4 546 3
! 546