Unexplained & Inordinate Delay In Invoking Statutory Remedies Is Relevant Consideration While Exercising Powers Under Article 226: Jharkhand HC

The observation came from Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary:

"This Court is of the considered view that unexplained and inordinate delay and laches in approaching the statutory authorities invoking statutory remedies is also an important consideration in exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the writ courts do not sit in appeal against the orders passed by the authorities in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of judicial review is very limited."

The Petitioner herein was punished by reduction of 2 stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years for absence from duty for about 24 hours. The order of disciplinary authority was upheld till the Appellate Court level. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition, which was dismissed citing unexplained delay of 6 years. This order was challenged in instant writ proceedings.

The Respondent raised preliminary objection, stating that there is no perversity in the finding recorded in the enquiry proceedings and considering the limited scope of interference in the departmental proceedings, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner contended that there is no finding recorded by the authorities regarding his willful absence and that there was sufficient explanation on the part of the petitioner to leave without permission and therefore the impugned orders call for interference by this Court.

The Court after hearing both sides noted that in the present matter neither any jurisdictional issue nor any serious allegation of infraction of any fundamental right of the petitioner nor any serious allegation of arbitrary action on the part of the statutory authorities, are involved.

"This Court is of the considered view that once the statutory remedy of revision available to the petitioner has been held to be barred by limitation and being without any explanation for inordinate delay and no arguments having been advanced in connection with the legality and validity of the revisional order dismissing the revision as time barred, any interference in writ proceedings against the order of punishment and/or appellate order would amount to stretching the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India too far and beyond the permissible limits."

Coming to the contention that the petitioner had gone to attend his ailing mother, the court held that the petitioner could not produce any such material oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention.

"On account of rejection of the explanation furnished by the petitioner for his absence, there being no explanation for his absence as proved in the departmental enquiry, the case of the petitioner would certainly fall within the realm of willful absence. In 7 case of absence from duty and when allegation is made regarding willful absence, it is certainly for the delinquent employee to plead and prove the reasons for his absence from duty as such reason for absence from duty, if any, is certainly within the exclusive knowledge of the delinquent employee. In case, the reason for absence is not proved or not brought on record by the delinquent employee, the onus to prove the reasons for absence being bonafide or to prove that the absence was not willful, cannot be said to have been discharged by the concerned delinquent employee."

In view of the above observation and the limited scope of judicial review, the court dismissed the petition.