JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner, amongst other prayers, is seeking to quash Order No.87 of 1999 dated 28.01.1999 issued by Commandant, JKAP, XII Bn., respondent No.5 herein, whereby the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 05.03.1998.

2. The facts, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the year 1987 in XII Bn., JKAP. Thereafter, vide Order No.58 of 1994 dated 22.01.1994, he was converted as Constable and after completion of training, he was posted in 12 Bn. Batmallu, Srinagar. It is averred that in the year 1998 the petitioner suffered from fits and mental tension due to stress and strain on duty and he went to his house at Kishtwar with the permission of his superiors. Thereafter, he remained under the treatment with effect from 05.03.1998 to 28.04.2004, and after recovering from illness, he reported his Unit in the month of May 2004, but was not allowed to join, rather he was informed that he has already been discharged from service vide Order No.87 of 1999 dated 28.01.1999. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the respondents while discharging the petitioner from services neither followed the provisions of Police Manual nor served any notice on the petitioner or afforded him an opportunity of hearing. She further argued that there was no delay on the part of petitioner in filing the present petition as the order impugned was never served upon him. She further argued that as and when the petitioner came to know about the issuance of order impugned, he challenged the same by filing the present petition.

4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents averring therein that the petitioner absented un-authorizedly from duty with effect from 05.03.1998. Petitioner was repeatedly notified to resume the duty, also through SHO Police Station Kishtwar, but he failed to resume his duties. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and attendance notice was also published in Kashmir Times asking the petitioner to resume his duties. Since the petitioner did not turn up, as such ex-parte decision of discharging the petitioner was taken and the order of discharge, impugned herein, was also served upon the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued that the petition suffers from delay and laches as the order impugned came to be issued on 28.01.1999 and the present petition came to be filed in March 2007.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the file as well as the original record produced by learned counsel for respondents.

7. Firstly, I deal with the issue of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition. Admittedly, a perusal of the original record reveals that there is no endorsement in the order impugned dated 28.01.1999 to the effect that the copy of order was actually sent to the petitioner; meaning thereby the impression goes that the order impugned was not served upon the petitioner when it came to be issued in January 1999. However, a perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner came to know about the issuance of impugned order in the month of May 2004, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:

“4) That the petitioner after recovering from illness, in the month of May, 2004 reported to his unit, but the petitioner was not allowed to join and he was informed that he has been discharged from service vide Order No.87of 1999 dated 28.01.1999 issued by the Commandant, JKAP, XII Bn. Jammu.”

8. Thus, the petitioner has himself admitted in the writ petition that the petitioner came to know about the issuance of impugned order in the month of May 2004. However, the writ petition came to be filed on 20.03.2007, i.e., two years and eight months after the petitioner got the knowledge of issuance of order impugned. The petitioner has not explained that what prevented him from approaching the Court for