IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Narendra Roy @ Narendra Nath Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Through The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt Of Assam, Home And Political Affairs Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.2124 of 2020
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Delay in Approaching Writ Court - Service Matter - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 1985, 2014, 2020 - The court dismissed the writ petition due to inordinate delay of more than three and a half decades in espousing the cause.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Assam Police, was dismissed from service in 1985. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2020 challenging the dismissal after an inordinate delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition due to the inordinate delay of more than three and a half decades in approaching the court.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in approaching the court to challenge the dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the inordinate delay of more than three and a half decades in espousing the cause as a relevant factor for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed.
JUDGMENT :
The power and jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially a power of equity wherein the conduct of the party approaching the Court is of paramount importance. The instant case is another example of a party approaching this Court not only after inordinate and unexplained delay but has slept over his rights.
2. The facts, bereft of the details are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Assam Police on 13.11.1971. A Departmental Proceeding No. 10/85 was initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service, vide the impugned order dated 13.08.1985. It is projected that though the petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal, the same was rejected on 01.09.2014 and challenging the same, the instant petition has been filed in the year 2020.
3. I have heard Shri A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the State respondents are represented by Shri C. K. Sharma Barua, the learned State Counsel.
4. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of dismissal from service is because of a grudge by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and accordingly it has been contended that the same is not sustainable because of want of bonafide. It is submitted that pertaining to an incident of alleged smuggling of illegal timber wherein the petitioner had allegedly requested for taking action, the higher authorities had taken exception to the fact, and the outcome of such grudge is the order of dismissal. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned order of dismissal and the appellate order rejecting the appeal are to be interfered with.
5. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that before even going to the merits of the challenge, the impugned order of dismissal is of the year 1985 and the same has been challenged in this petition filed in the year 2020. The learned State Counsel has also placed on record the communications exchanged with regard to the original record of the disciplinary proceeding. A communication dated 04.04.2023, issued by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri has been placed on record whereby it was informed that the records being sufficiently old were found to be damaged by termite attack and were accordingly destroyed. With regard to the aspects of GPF / subsistence allowance, there were no individual records maintained in the office.
6. On the allegation of malice in fact, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the same is a vague allegation and the unauthorized absence from duties was for a long period of time and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is fully justified, more so, when the services of the petitioner was with a disciplined force.
7. The rival contentions have been duly examined and the records placed before this Court have been perused.
8. The impugned order of dismissal dated 13.08.1985 was on culmination of a disciplinary proceeding. The records reveal that show-cause notice was issued on 18.07.1985 which was replied to on 22.07.1985 and thereafter, on the own admission of the petitioner, an enquiry was held. It is however pleaded that the petitioner was not allowed cross-examination of the witnesses and the impugned action was taken at the behest of the Superintendent of Police who had a grudge against him.
9. What is however striking is the fact of the inordinate and unexplained delay of about three decades from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of preferring an appeal. Even the action of the petitioner to obtain the relevant papers is of the year 2014. In paragraph 12 of the petition, the following has been stated:
Inordinate delay in approaching a Writ Court can be a relevant factor for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
The discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requires prompt approach to the court, and unexplained delay and latches could be a basis to refuse to exercise....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.