Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1459 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 inasmuch as the genuineness of his marks cards and diploma certificates at Annexures-A, B, C and D are concerned - Seeking to prosecute the respondent No.3 for manipulating the said documents - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected firstly for the reason that the petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile superior officer of the respondent No.3 who is now retired, cannot seek the relief of initiating disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. If any such fraud alleged said to have been committed by the respondent No.3, ought to have been discovered by the petitioner during his service period in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. The petitioner/officer after his retirement becomes functus officio. The writ of mandamus could be issued only in the circumstances where the statutory authorities fail to perform their functions vis-à-vis the fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner must establish that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty, by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting. Such duty may be one imposed by the Constitution, Statute, Common Law or by Rules or Orders having force of law.It is well settled principle that there must be a demand and a denial in substance by the authority concerned in order to claim the relief of writ of mandamus. It is ex-facie apparent that there is neither vested right nor any such request/representation/attempt made by the petitioner with the employer to examine the allegations now raised against the respondent No.3. No legal rights/fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. No mandamus could be issued just to set right or settle the individual differences or disputes. The Writ Court cannot be used as a tool to resolve the personal enmity or such inter-se disputes. It is significant to note that the third respondent is now retired from service on 31.07.2019. The petitioner has filed an application – I.A-1/2018 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to release any retirement benefits to the respondent No.3 until the disposal of the writ petition. This conduct of the respondent would necessarily indicate his personal vengeance against the respondent No.3. The writ petition being bereft of any substance, stands dismissed with cost of ₹ 10,000/- payable to the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks.
|