Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition without satisfactory explanation can lead to dismissal, even in cases involving fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 18 October, 2023 passed in O.A No.050/00813/2019 read with M.A No. 050/00813/2019. In the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short CAT) petitioner assailed the order of removal from service dated 14.12.1992. Further, he has sought for release of the pay and all due allowances for the intervening period from 06.11.1989 and 31.05.2015. The CAT proceeded to dismiss the petitioner’s original application on the score of limitation hence the present petition. Cause of action accrued to the petitioner as on 13.12.1993 with reference to removal from service dated 14.12.1992 that is within one year from the date of cause of action, petitioner should have invoke the remedy in filing application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Assuming that petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and appeal has been filed on 04.03.1993 and if the appeal is not decided within a period of six months that is 03.07.1993 even from 03.07.1993 the petitioner was required to invoke remedy before the CAT on or before 04.12.1994 (one and half years) time from the date of filing appeal before the appellate authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay is on account of pendency of criminal case. In the criminal case petitioner is stated to have been convicted on 13.12.1993. Thereafter, he has assailed conviction order dated 13.12.1993 in criminal appeal in the year 1993 itself. The criminal appeal was allowed on 11.09.18 while setting aside the conviction order dated 13.12.1993 resultantly the petitioner has approached the CAT in the year 2019.

3. The aforementioned cause for condonation of delay from 19.04.2019 cannot be taken into consideration with reference to pendency of criminal case for the reasons that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are two separate proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on umpteen number of decisions, therefore, the petitioner should not have waited for decision in the criminal proceedings insofar as in not challenging the order of removal from service dated 14.12.1992 read with the inaction of the appellate authority on the petitioner’s memorandum of appeal dated 04.03.1993. In other words, the present litigation is hopelessly barred by delay and latches. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhandra Koley and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5027 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30152 of 2018) para 10 to 14 elaborately considered in respect of belated litigation entertaining by the respective Courts and it reads as under:-

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismisse