State of U.P.Through the Secretary to Govt.Irrigation Department, Lucknow and Another vs Suresh Chandra Sharma & Another

Shobha Dikshit, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.6.94 and the order dated 21.11.96. Respondent No. 1 while working as Assistant Engineer some adverse entry was awarded to him for the year 198283 and the integrity certificate was also withheld. The adverse entry was communicated and the respondent made a representation against it in the year 1985 itself. Because of the said adverse entry since the petitioner''s career was being affected adversely, he filed claim petition bearing claim petition No. 288/F/IV/1990 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal and the learned Tribunal passed interim order dated 13.6.90 restraining the concerned authority from taking into consideration the said entry while considering his claim for promotion and selection grade. While said claim petition was pending and the interim order was subsisting the State Government served a charge sheet on the respondent for the same incidents relating to year 198283 on 4391 i.e. after about eight years. Being aggrieved by the service of belated chargesheet respondent preferred the instant claim petition. The learned Tribunal decided the said claim petition and quashed the impugned charge sheet dated 4.3.91 vide its judgment dated 23.6.94.

The State Government since had not filed written statement before the learned Tribunal therefore an application on its behalf was moved before the Tribunal for recalling the aforesaid ex parte judgment dated 23.6.94 which was rejected on 2.11.96 on the ground of delay as also on merits.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Government challenges both these orders on the ground that fair opportunity was not given to the opposite party/State Government.

I have perused both, the judgment dated 23.6.94 and the order dated 21.11.96. It is to be noticed that certified copy of the judgement dated 23.6.94 was received by the State Government on 6.7.94 but inspite of that it took several months to move necessary application for recall of the said judgement and filed the application on 9.3.95 only. The reason for not filing written statement. Inspite of several opportunities having been granted by the learned Tribunal has been said to be want of relevant records. No details as to which relevant record and for what reasons was not available for which the State Government could not file written statement within time have been given. Even assuming that record was not available an appropriate application before the Tribunal could have been moved for extending time giving reasons for inability to file written statement but this was not done. The action of the State Government throughout lacked bona fides and the Tribunal therefore rightly rejected application on the ground of delay as also on merits that chargesheet was highly belated and was issued after lapse of several years. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with this matter as the judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. This writ petition is accordingly rejected.

(Petition dismissed.)