Justice Brij Raj Singh, Allahabad High Court
Sleeping Over The Matter For Over Ten Years: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Termination
|The Allahabad High Court upheld the termination Order of an employee by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the Termination Order against an employee while remarking that he had been “sleeping over the matter for over ten years.”
The Court upheld the termination Order of an employee (Petitioner) by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Respondent). The Petitioner had filed the Petition seeking a direction from the Court to direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to join as Clerk-cum-Typist.
A Single Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh held, “This approach of the petitioner cannot be appreciated as neither registered document was sent to the answering opposite party nor any application was served through proper mode in the office of the answering opposite party. The proof of receipt of Under Postal Certificate is a document which cannot be relied upon and no reliance can be paced on such document as it has no evidentiary value.”
Advocate Sampurnanand Shukla appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate P K Sinha represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist and his services were confirmed. Subsequently, the Petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect. This termination order was passed after a charge-sheet was issued alleging that the Petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly and without any information from the office for a long period. The Petitioner challenged this termination Order.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to the Standing Orders governing the service conditions, particularly Clause 9.3.12, which dealt with "absence without leave". The Court noted that the "Standing Orders are binding on the workmen as well as the management". It was observed that a "regular enquiry was held against the petitioner" and he was "found guilty of the charges levelled against him". The inquiry report was "forwarded to the petitioner", and after considering his reply, the disciplinary authority passed the termination order.
The Court stated that the "disciplinary authority has followed the due procedure as envisaged in the Standing Orders".
The Court, citing the Supreme Court's observations in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2022), stated that there was "no cogent explanation for the delay". The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted that "the writ petition was filed more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action is said to have arisen and there being no cogent explanation for the delay, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches alone."
Consequently, the Court ordered, “After recording the findings on the basis of facts and law, this Court does not find any good ground on merit to interfere in the impugned order as the same has been passed after following the due procedure as envisaged in the Standing Orders. The petitioner was sleeping over the matter for over ten years, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches also.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rajendra Prasad Tripathi v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:30708)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sampurnanand Shukla, Abhinav Nath Tripathi, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anurag Tyagi, D.K.Srivastava, S.K. Tripathi, Subodh Kumar Verma and Vishal Singh
Respondent: Advocate P K Sinha