Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an intra court challenge to an order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2021 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20732/2019 solely on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant, a former Teacher Grade-III appointed on 23.02.1999 under the divorcee quota, challenged termination order dated 06.11.2012 passed under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The appellant claimed she remained absent due to medical ailments, suffered a fall in Kathmandu, and was declared fit to resume duties on 20.05.2013. Upon approaching authorities in July 2013, she learned that her services had been terminated with effect from 09.10.2011 on ground of unauthorised and wilful absence. She submitted a representation to the Governor on 11.11.2013, but no outcome was communicated; subsequent demand notices dated 26.11.2015 and 06.02.2018 remained unanswered. In September 2019, she obtained service records through the Right to Information Act and then filed the writ petition challenging the termination. The Single Judge dismissed the writ on 12.07.2021 primarily due to delay, without examining merits. In appeal, appellant argued that she came to know of the termination only in September 2019 through RTI and filed the writ immediately on 03.12.2019; that termination without departmental inquiry violated Article 311 and natural justice; that Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules mandates departmental inquiry for wilful absence exceeding one month; and that the retrospective effect given to the termination from 09.10.2011 was impermissible. Respondents contended that due procedure under Rule 86 was followed, including show cause notice dated 12.09.2011, further notices, and newspaper publications; that appellant failed to respond; and that the writ was filed after inordinate delay of almost seven years. The Division Bench found the delay explanation wholly mechanical and without application of mind. It noted that on appellant's own showing, she came to know of termination in July 2013, and her representation to the Governor in November 2013 assailed the order on same grounds; thus cause of action crystallised by July 2013. The court observed that the writ petition was filed only on 21.11.2019, more than six years after knowledge, and the RTI plea was an afterthought to overcome laches. It held that RTI route could not rescue the appellant, as what was obtained in 2019 was at best record and correspondence, not fresh knowledge of the termination. Concluding that no ground existed to interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal on delay, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The court did not examine the merits of termination, including alleged violation of natural justice or Rule 86(3), because laches barred consideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226 - An aggrieved employee must approach the writ court without unreasonable delay after cause of action arises, and subsequent representations or RTI queries do not extend limitation - The appellant challenged termination order dated 06.11.2012, had knowledge in July 2013, but filed writ petition only in November 2019 after more than six years; the explanation was wholly mechanical and the RTI plea was an afterthought - Held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised at belated stage, and the Single Judge's dismissal on delay was affirmed (Paras 6-9.2). B) Service Law - Termination of Government Servant - Natural Justice and Inquiry - Article 311, Constitution of India; Rule 86, Rajasthan Service Rules - Appellant contended that termination for unauthorised absence without departmental inquiry under Rule 86(3) violated principles of natural justice and constitutional protection - Court did not examine merits due to unexplained delay and laches, although noting the arguments - Held that appeal dismissed on ground of delay without deciding legality of termination (Paras 3-3.3, 9-9.2). C) Service Law - Retrospective Termination - Impermissibility - Administrative Law - Termination order dated 06.11.2012 made effective from 09.10.2011 challenged as retrospective and impermissible relying on R. Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras and State Bank of Patiala v. Ram Niwas Bansal - Court refrained from examining the issue due to delay and laches - Held that no interference warranted because of laches (Paras 3.3, 9-9.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on grounds of delay and laches without examining merits of termination order under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules; whether termination without departmental inquiry violated Article 311 and natural justice; whether termination order could be given retrospective effect
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal Writ No. 723/2021, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20732/2019. The Court held that the appellant had knowledge of the termination order in July 2013, and the writ petition filed only on 21.11.2019 suffered from more than six years of delay; the plea of acquiring knowledge through RTI in September 2019 was an afterthought and could not rescue the appellant from laches. No ground to interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal on delay was made out.
Law Points
- Writ petition must be filed without unreasonable delay
- cause of action crystallises on knowledge of adverse order
- subsequent representations and RTI queries do not extend limitation
- extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 not exercised at belated stage
- delay defeats claim despite merits
