The petitioner, Laxman Chougale, has not explained why it took him 14 years after his dismissal from Union Bank of India in 1991, to make a representation to it's Chairman and Managing Director regarding the bank's decision to terminate his service, Justice Rajesh Ketkar and S A Bobade said recently.
"In our opinion, the petitioner has not made out any cause, much less sufficient cause for entertaining this petition. It suffers from gross delay and latches," the judges opined.
"We decline to exercise extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of a stale claim. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged," the judges noted.
The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal dated July 24, 1991 passed by Enquiry officer-cum-Disciplinary authority, Union Bank of India. He had also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority of November 18, 1991, upholding his dismissal from service.
After 14 years, he had made a representation to CMD of the Bank who also rejected his plea in 2005. Being aggrieved, he filed a petition in the High Court recently.
The Court noted that firstly it took the petitioner 14 years to file a representation to CMD of the Bank and when it got rejected he filed a petition in the High Court after a gap of seven years. As the petitioner could not convince the Court about the delay, the petition was rejected.
