IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing a writ petition can lead to dismissal if not adequately explained, emphasizing the principle that equity aids the vigilant.

JUDGMENT :

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.)

Heard Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for all the respondents.

2. This intra-Court writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3298/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner solely on the ground of delay and laches.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while serving as a Constable in the Unarmed Branch of Assam Police, the appellant went on casual leave but he did not join his duties after expiry of the casual leave period and therefore, a show-cause notice dated 29.11.2012, under Section 65 of Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of Assam Police Manual Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, was served upon him mainly on the ground that he had not resumed the duty after expiry of the casual leave.

4. It is not clear as to whether the appellant submitted reply to the said show-cause notice or not. However, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was put under suspension as per the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara. The appellant was served with a second show-cause notice on 17.03.2014 on the same charge for which the first show-cause notice had been issued to him.

5. The appellant replied to the said second show-cause notice with the explanation that he had fallen ill and had to undergo medical treatment from a doctor and therefore, he failed to join his duties after expiry of the leave period.

6. It is the case of the appellant that along with the reply to the second show-cause notice he had enclosed a medical certificate issued by the In-charge Deputy Superintendent of Kakaya 30 Bedded Rural Hospita, Nalbari.

7. Subsequently, the appellant was served with another show-cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara along with the report of the Enquiry Officer and ultimately he was removed from service vide order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara.

8. The appellant remained silent up to 2021, precisely, up to 28.04.2021 when he preferred the writ petition, being WP(C) No.3298/2021, before this Court challenging the order dated 10.09.2014, whereby he was removed from service.

9. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

The relevant portions of the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 is extracted hereunder:

“5. It is also seen that there is no documents annexed in this writ petition to show that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the competent authority against the impugned order dated 10.09.2014. Therefore, the petitioner has accepted the punishment of removal from service as imposed by order dated 10.09.2014 without any demur and as this writ petition was filed on 28.04.2021, the petitioner is seen to have challenged the order of removal after 6(six) years and 10(ten) months. It is further seen that it is not the case of the petitioner that the proceedings against him was ex parte and that he did not participate in the proceeding. We may refer to the case of the Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 where in connection with belated service related claim, the Supreme Court of India had observed that the belated service related claim is to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches except in the case of continuous wrong. In the present case in hand, there is nothing to show that in this case the petitioner is suffering from continuous wrong.

6. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner had acquiesced on his right to claim relief before the Court and accordingly, this is a fit and appropriate case for invoking the legal maxim of vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniu