Delay in filing a writ petition may be a factor for not interfering with the impugned order, but it is not a ground for dismissing it outright.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was a Development Officer and, thus, was a Class-II Staff within the meaning of the provision of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed under Clauses (b) and (bb) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956.

3. Admittedly, the Zonal Officer was his disciplinary authority.

4. Allegedly, for absence of a period of 61 days disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant. He tiled his written statement, inter alia, contending that he was not an unauthorised leave and/or otherwise, he was also entitled to grant of leave which was due to him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Zonal Manager. The Zonal Manager called upon the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from services where after the appellant submitted his explanation. He also prayed for a personal hearing but without grant of such hearing, an order of termination was made on 28th January, 1969. The appellant made a number of representations to the respondent No.4 to revoke and/or withdraw and/or cancel the said order and reinstate him in service. He also prayed for his re-employment if the reinstatement was not possible.

5. The petitioner's representation for re-employment was rejected on 15th February, 1974. The petitioner, it appeals, had also filed an appeal before the Chairman on 3.8.1970. On 81.1974, he sent a reminder to which the following reply was sent by a letter dated 15th February, 1974 stating:-

"With reference to your letter dated, 9th January, 1974 we have to inform you that as per Regulation 12 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, no person who has been dismissed from the service of the corporation shall be reemployed. As such, we regret our inability to accede to your request."

6. The learned trial Judge by a laconic order dismissed the application, inter alia, holding that the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay without explaining the same. As regard the other findings, no reason has at all been assigned nor the contention of the appellant to the effect that the Zonal Manager being the appellate authority, he could not have acted as a disciplinary authority had been taken into consideration.

7. There is no doubt that in terms of the aforesaid Regulations a memorial to the Chairman is permissible.

8, It is not in dispute that such memorial had been rejected only I on 2.2.1974. It was, therefore, not a case where there was absolutely no explanation for the delay on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching this Court.

9. In (1) Sudersan Trading Co. v. Kelvin Jute Co. reported in CLT 1999 (1) HC 108, a Division Bench of this Court was a member held that the Court may in a given case even may not ask the writ petitioner to avail alternative remedy.

10. In (2) Md. Jaheeruddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 AP 259, it was held :

"From a reading of the above decisions the position that emerges is that in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the paramount consideration for the High Court is to render Justice; Justice not only to the petitioner but also to the parties to the petition. The ultimate question will be whether the delay or 'laches on the part of the petitioner are such as to confer a right on the opposite party on account of such delay or laches. If so, would it be unjust to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, so as to divest the other party of the right accrued to him on account of such delay or laches. This has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case."

11. In (3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Dolly Das reported in 1999(4) SCC 450, it was he