Director General Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar

1. As the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CAV 362/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPLs. 59633-34/2025 (Exemptions)

3. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1104/2018, titled Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Anr., whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent herein was allowed with the following direction:

4. At the outset, we would note that the present petition has been filed only on 12.06.2025, that is, after a delay of almost four years. In the meantime, in compliance with the directions passed by the learned Tribunal, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Order dated 26.08.2022, imposed a penalty of withholding increments for a period of five years upon the respondent. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on 21.01.2025 by the Appellate Authority. The respondent had also filed another O.A., being O.A. NO. 1163/2024, challenging the penalty imposed upon him, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 20.03.2024, while directing the Appellate Authority to expeditiously decide the appeal.

5. The above events clearly show that the petitioners had, in fact, complied with the Impugned Order and issued subsequent orders in compliance therewith. Much water has also flown after the passing of the impugned order and it shall be totally unfair to the respondent to allow the petitioner to now challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, at this belated stage. The principles of delay and latches would squarely debar the petitioner from maintaining this petition.

6. In our view, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also on account of the challenge being an afterthought, raised after due compliance with the Impugned Order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in an attempt to persuade us to hold the present petition to be maintainable, has placed reliance on the Judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the SLP (Civil) No. 2681/2024, titled The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Kopparla Santhi, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: “It is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the judgment sought to be challenged in the Writ Appeal was already complied with under threat of contempt. This Court made it clear that compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party as available to challenge the same, in law (See the decision of this Court in Subodh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 11 SCC 139]).”

8. The above Judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners. In that case, the Judgment Impugned before the Supreme Court had been complied with only under the threat of contempt. The Supreme Court held that compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party to challenge the same in law.

9. In the present case, however, as is evident from the subsequent events, the petitioners complied with the Impugned Order on their own, and in fact, not once but multiple times through various proceedings taken pursuant to the said implementation, including the order passed by the Appellate Authority of the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, we dismiss the present petition both on the ground of delay and laches as well as on the ground of maintainability.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2025/ys/k/DG