Bodh Nath Mishra v. The Union of India & Anr.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks (i) issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing his dismissal order which was passed against him about 17 years ago, i.e., by an order dated 06.12.1997 by respondent No.2 and (ii) issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to 2014:DHC:4786-DB the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Constable in CRPF w.e.f. 06.12.1997 alongwith all the consequential benefits arising from the same date.

2. The present writ petition has been strongly opposed by the respondents on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches. The contention raised by the respondents is that the Review Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the IGP Southern Sector vide order dated 29.08.2000, and no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order of the Revisional Authority for a period of more than 13 years and by a mere fact that a fresh representation dated 30.12.2011 of the petitioner was again rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 12.02.2012 will not provide any fresh cause of action to assail the order of dismissal dated 06.12.1997.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The petitioner herein was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.12.1997. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 2nd July, 1998 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Chennai- Awadi, Madras-65 and vide order dated 18th December, 1998 the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had also filed a Revision Petition dated 16.02.2000 before the IGP S/S, CRPF, Hyderabad to challenge both the orders of disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authorities and the said Revision Petition too was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2000 passed by the Revisional Authority. No steps were taken thereafter by the petitioner to assail the said order and with a view to create a fresh ground of challenge, the petitioner had submitted a petition dated 30.12.2011, which was also rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 12.02.2002.

5. In the entire petition, the petitioner hardly accords any explanation for consideration as to under what circumstances he did not take any steps to challenge the said order for a period of more than 13 years. To say that the petitioner was under great depression because of his dismissal and had also lost all his documents relating to service for which an FIR dated 28.07.2003 was lodged with the Police Station- New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi is hardly satisfactory for us to consider it as a plausible explanation for not approaching the Court for such a long time.

6. The petitioner had also suppressed the material fact that his Revision Petition was dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 12.02.2012 and this suppression on the part of the petitioner also disentitles the petitioner from invoking equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also not placed any medical document to show that he was undergoing any medical treatment and the FIR with regard to the missing of service documents was also lodged by him in the year 2003 and this again shows the cavalier and callous attitude of the petitioner. From the year 2003 onwards the petitioner took no steps to seek his remedy till the date of filing a fresh representation on 30.12.2011, i.e., after a gap of 8 years. The case of the petitioner is not a case relating to a continuing wrong and therefore, in the absence of any cogent and plausible explanation given by the petitioner for not approaching the Court to challenge the order of his dismissal dated 06.12.1997 and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority within a reasonable period, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner due to inordinate and unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner is also guilty of suppressing vital facts from this Court, including the order dated 12.02.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority due to which also, he is disentitled to the grant of any relief in the present petition. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 v