Unreasonable delay in challenging punishment can lead to dismissal of the petition. The disqualification for promotion during the currency of punishment and entitlement to promotion after completion of the punishment period are determined by relevant rules and official memoranda.

N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J.

1. L.P. appeal No. 499/2002 is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order 11.07.2002 of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, SWP No. 193/2002, insofar as not interfering the order dated 22.07.1997 imposing punishment of censure and penal recovery of Rs. 1000/- to be recovered in ten equal installments passed by respondent No. 3. L.P. Appeal No. 420/2002 is preferred by the respondents in the writ petition, namely, Union of India and its officers, insofar as giving directions to examine the contents of the decision kept in the sealed cover i.e. non-promotion of the writ petitioner with effect from 10.07.1995 within a period of three months.

2. The decision to be rendered in LPASW No. 499/2002 will have a direct bearing on LPASW No. 420/2002 filed by the Union of India. Hence the said LPA is taken up for consideration at the first instance.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the writ petitioner, namely the appellant in LPASW No. 499/2002 and respondent in LPASW No. 420/2002, was proceeded with the departmental action while he was posted as Supervisor BS Grade-II in GE Project 6351. The allegation was that 405 CGI sheets were stolen from MES Store yard when the writ petitioner was the Supervisor for the store yard. The theft was reported on 8/9th July, 1990 which resulted in loss of Rs. 60,547.50 to the State. Charge memo was issued on 15.07.1992 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for failure to exercise visual and physical check of CGI sheets and detect losses and report to senior officer. The writ petitioner was also charged for failure in providing proper security light and proper supervision on functioning of the staff employed under him and for providing torch calls to the Chowkidars. Inquiry Officer was appointed on 10.09.1992 to inquire into the charges framed against the writ petitioner and two others. According to the writ petitioner, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 20.04.1993 holding that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved.

4. The contention of the department is that the charges were proved. Though it is contended that by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the Inquiry Officer gave a finding that the charges have not been proved and only in the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority the writ petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he has failed to supervise the putting up of lights near the store.

5. As the charge memo dated 15.07.1992 issued was pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1995 kept his performance appraisal in a sealed cover while preparing the penal for promotion as Supervisor BS Grade-I which was circulated on 10.07.1995. The disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of censure and penal recovery of Rs. 1000/- by order dated 14.06.1997. The next DPC was held in 1997 and the name of the writ petitioner was included in the promotion panel circulated on 21.01.1997. The writ petitioner claimed promotion after the final order was passed in disciplinary proceedings, without challenging the punishment imposed and the said request was rejected in the year 2001 as per the statement made by the writ petitioner in his writ petition. The punishment imposed in the year 1997 and consequential denial of promotion was challenged by the writ petitioner in SWP No. 193/2002, i.e. after a period of five years.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the delay in challenging the punishment order has not been explained by the writ petitioner except stating that he was making representations to give him the benefit of promotion to the post of Supervisor Grade-I retrospectively i.e. from the date promotion was given to his juniors. The said challenge was rejected by the Writ Court on the ground of delay and laches.

7. The delay having not been explained and the writ petitioner having kept quiet for more than 4 years in not challen