AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-3) and order dated 22.06.2001 (Annexure-5), passed by the
respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits.
(iii) in alternative, petitioner’s case may kindly be remanded back before the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to
reconsider petitioner’s case afresh and to decide the same on its merits.
(iv) any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(v) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.â€
It is inter alia averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department as Constable by order dated
23/2/1988; on 9/9/1998 the services of the petitioner were transferred from Jodhpur to District Sirohi, however, the petitioner did not join her duties on
account of her suffering from certain diseases. On 6/7/1999 disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules’) were initiated; the petitioner responded to the said charge sheet claiming
that due to ill health she could not join her duties at the transferred place. By order dated 31/10/2000, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of
removal from service. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 31/10/2000, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority, which appeal
was dismissed by order dated 22.6.2001; the review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected by His Excellency the Governor on 16/1/2002.
Apparently, the petitioner thereafter did not question the legality/validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the
reviewing authority.
However, it appears that on some instructions issued some where, a report dated 20/1/2015 was prepared by the Addl. Superintendent of Police,
Jodhpur inter alia indicating that the punishment given to the petitioner was not justified, which report was forwarded by the Inspector General of
Police, Jodhpur Range to the Officer on Special Duty, Home Ministry by his letter dated 21/1/2015 (Annex.6).
The petitioner, thereafter, filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14324/2017 alleging inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not acting on the report
dated 20/1/2015. This Court by order dated 10/11/2017 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable as mandamus was sought without making
representation or serving notice for demand of justice, however, the petitioner was given liberty to represent in furtherance of the report dated
20/1/2015.
Pursuant to the order dated 10/11/2017 passed by this Court, the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his order dated 2/1/2018 (Annex.7)
reproduced the entire report as forwarded by the Inspector General of Police, while rejecting the representation observed as under:
^^mijksDr tkap fjiksVZ dk voyksdu ,oa euu fd;k rFkk leLr rF;ksa ,oa fjdkMZ dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwafd izdj.k 31-10-2000 dk gS ftls 17 o""kZ ls
vf/kd le; O;rhr gks pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vc bl izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dk;Zokgh dh tkuk lEHko ugha gksus ds dkj.k budk vH;kosnu vLohd`r
fd;k tkrk gSA**
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Director General of Police is perverse and erroneous as the same has
been passed in a cursory, arbitrary and illegal manner. It was submitted that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected only on
account of delay, which is not justified.
Further submissions were made that the report of the Addl. Superintendent of Police categorically support the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the
respondents were not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner and consequently the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set
aside and writ petition deserves to be allowed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was visited with penalty of removal from service way back on 31/10/2000, the appeal against the
order of removal was rejected by the appellate authority on 22/6/2001 and the review petition was rejected by His Execellency the Governor on
16/1/2001 (though in the record it is indicated as 16/1/2001). Whereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps whatsoever to question the legality and
validity of the orders passed way back in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002.
It is surprising as to how the matter, which stood concluded in the year 2002 with the rejection of review petition by His Excellency the Governor, was
purportedly reinvestigated and a report was submitted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police on 20/1/2015 to the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur
Range regarding alleged injustice met to the petitioner and opining that the entire issue was required to be reviewed. The Inspector General of Police
forwarded the report to the State Government on the very next date i.e. 21/1/2015, whereafter, as no action was taken on the said report, the
petitioner approached this Court, which granted liberty to the petitioner to represent to the respondents and whereafter, the representation has been
rejected by the Director General of Police indicating that as 17 years have passed, no action can be taken.
Once the proceedings of removal of petitioner from service stood concluded by way of order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority
and the reviewing authority, whether the said concluded issue could be reviewed or resurrected within the department under the provisions of the
Rules of 1958?
Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time twice in this regard to make submissions, however, he frankly made submissions that so far as the
Rules are concerned, no such action is possible, however, it was submitted that once such a view has been taken regarding the punishment imposed on
the petitioner, the Director General of Police could not have rejected the representation on the ground of delay.
As already noticed hereinbefore, as to how after 13 years of passing of the order by the reviewing authority, the matter was again taken up and a
report regarding alleged excess punishment meted out to the petitioner was prepared is not apparent from the record.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal & Anr. vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors. : (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the aspect
of delay and arising of fresh cause of action based on the decision on a representation under the directions of the Court/Tribunal, laid down as under:
In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions
issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has
expressed thus:
“Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or
barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the
Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department.
Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh
cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.â€
In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, this Court, after referring to C. Jacob has ruled that “15. When a belated representation in regard
to a “stale†or “dead†issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such
decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead†issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or
delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in
compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a
decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal thateven if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale
claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere
submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.â€
In view of the fact situation, as noticed hereinbefore, it cannot be said that the Director General of Police was not justified in rejecting the
representation on the ground of delay of over 17 years. Further, as already noticed hereinbefore, even assumption of the jurisdiction by the authorities
after dismissal of review petition in preparing the report is also dehors the provisions of Rules of 1958 as even otherwise they had no jurisdiction to
overturn the order imposing punishment/dismissal of appeal and review petition in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.