Delay in filing a petition under Article 226 may result in dismissal, emphasizing that unreasonable delays can bar claims despite no strict limitation applicable.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 35429/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 11491/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.03.2002 passed by the respondent no.4, ordering removal of the petitioner from service on account of his unauthorized absence from duty, as also praying for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to re-join duty.

2. The petitioner was working as a Constable with the Railway Protection Special Force and was posted at New Delhi. He was allowed to avail 21 days special leave, one day rest and two days commuted leave (CL) with effect from 08.06.2000 to 01.07.2000 and was to resume his duty on 02.07.2000. As he did not do so inspite of several call notices issued to him, upon an ex-parte inquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service vide impugned Order dated 14.03.2002. The petitioner made representations against the said order only in the years 2013 and 2014. The said representations were rejected on the ground of delay by an order dated 17/19.10.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while on leave, the petitioner suffered a stroke leading to mental disorder for which he remained under constant medical supervision of one Dr.Mahendra Pratap Yadav at his Nursing Home Matwarganj, Azamgarh till 2013. Even the father of the petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the petitioner and this fact was to the knowledge of the respondents during the course of inquiry against the petitioner.

4. He further states that the petitioner was not personally served with any notice of inquiry and therefore, the inquiry has been conducted and concluded ex-parte.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not earlier approach this Court as he was arranging for funds for filing the writ petition. He further submits that this Court should take a lenient and sympathetic view and grant the relief claimed in the petition.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no force in the same.

7. As noted hereinabove, the order of removal from service against the petitioner was passed in March, 2002. The petitioner represented against the same only in 2013/2014. The said representations of the petitioner were also rejected in October, 2015. Prior thereto, as disclosed in the petition, the petitioner had approached the High Court of Allahabad by way of a writ petition, which also was dismissed on 29.07.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner recovered from his mental illness in 2013. Barring stating that the petitioner was arranging for funds for filing of the writ petition, there is no justifiable explanation for the delay in filing of the present petition.

8. In Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101, Supreme Court has held that while the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 does not apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after reasonable lapse of time; the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over their rights. The relevant quotation from the judgment is as under:

"15. Seen from a different perspective also, it is clear that the Respondent has shown little concern to the settled legal tenets. Even a civil suit challenging termination of services, if filed by the Respondent, would have undoubtedly been barred by limitation in 19