S.B. SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

1. Appellant herein was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He allegedly proceeded on medical leave on 17.2.1992. He reported for duty on 1.4.1992. He was found medically fit and declared as such on 6.4.1992. He again applied for medical leave and without such leave being sanctioned he unauthorisedly left his place of posting on 9.4.1992. He remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 67 days. He returned back to his duty only on 12.7.1992. On the charges of having remained unauthorisedly absent, he was sentenced to seven days confinement to Civil Lines. As against the said order, he made a representation. The said representation, however, was not routed through proper channel, whereupon a proceeding was again initiated against him. He was directed to be confined for ten days in the Civil Lines and on the premise that he refused to comply with the requirements of such confinement to Civil Lines, another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In the said proceedings the charges against him were held to be partially proved. He was dismissed from service but then another disciplinary proceeding was directed to be initiated.

2. The order of dismissal was passed in the year 1994. He preferred an appeal there against. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 5.4.1995.

3. He filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court questioning the said order of dismissal in the year 1997 which was marked as W.P. 85/1997. On the premise that the said writ petition was filed after a lapse of two years, a learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith an intra Court appeal was preferred there against. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 9.11.2006 the said appeal has also been dismissed stating:

"..The appeal was dismissed on 5.4.9: but the writ petition was filed on 9.5.97 Within the four corners of the writ petition the writ petitioner/appellant has not assigned any reason for this long delay for moving this Court in writ jurisdiction.

In the case report in (2006) 4 Supreme Court at page 322 it has been laid down that the delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mini t by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is sue! 5 negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as take b in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the opposite party.

In this case the writ petitioner/appellant has prayed for invoking the power of the Court in writ jurisdiction after unexplained delay of a number of years. He by his conduct had accepted the punishment inflicted upon him. The chapter was closed'. Now again after long laps of a number of years the said closed chapter cannot be reopened. Thus, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay."

Appellant is thus before us.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of his appeal submitted that the High Court in a situation of this nature should not have refused to entertain the writ petition as also the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant herein only on the ground of delay and laches as a result whereof manifest injustice has been caused to him. Learned counsel would point out that in terms of Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, the respondent could not have initiated a second inquiry after having found that the charges have been partially proved in the first inquiry. It was, furthermore, contented that in the Central Reserve Police Force Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there does not exist any provision for imposition of punishment of confinement to Civi