The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in seeking remedy can result in the denial of discretionary power based on principles of equity, and that delay defeats equity.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 14750 of 2014, dated 21.01.2015, the writ petitioner, who is an octogenarian, has field the present writ appeal.

2. Material on records disclose that the appellant/petitioner joined as a Fireman on 22.08.1949 in the Department of Fire and Rescue Services. On 31.08.1958, he was promoted to officiate as Fireman Driver. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Fire Officer, Palayamkottai Division, in P.R.No.1/1964 and that vide order in P.R.No.1/1964, dated 07.06.1994, he was removed from service. According to the appellant/petitioner, he had submitted an appeal on 24.08.1964 to the Chief Fire Officer, Madras Fire Service, Southern Regional Office, Madurai (Now Deputy Director, southern Region), through the District Fire Office, Palayamkottai. However, by Memorandum of the District Fire Officer, Palayamkottai, in P.R.No.1/64, dated 01.09.1964, the appellant was informed that the appeal was time barred and therefore it was withheld. After, nearly 49 years, on 09.10.2013, the appellant had submitted a petition to the second respondent, the Deputy Director, Department of Fire and Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai, terming it as "Review Petition".

3. Responding to the above petition, vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.5486/Aa./2013, dated 27.03.2014, the Joint Director, Training and Rescue Operations, State Training Centre, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, Chennai-42, who was also in Full Additional Charge of Deputy Director, Southern Region, Madurai, has stated that as per relevant Rules, the appeal petition ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of punishment and if any petition for review is filed beyond the stipulated time, the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services has no authority to take action. The Joint Director, Training and Rescue Operations, State Training Centre, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, Chennai, who was also in Full Additional Charge of Deputy Director, Southern Region, Madurai, has also taken note of the averments made in the petition, styled as "Review Petition". Thereafter, for the reasons stated, has rejected the petitions dated 09.10.2013 and 18.11.2013. Referring to Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Joint Director has stated that time barred appeal could be withheld by an authority not less than the authority against whose order the appeal is preferred, Challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 27.03.2014, the appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition.

4. Before the Writ Court, an attempt has been made that the appeal preferred on 24.08.1964 has been withheld by the District Fire Officer, Palayamkottai, and that, only when the appellate authority passes order, the appellant/petitioner could approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against any order to be passed in the appeal and therefore there was no delay or laches on the part of the appellant. A perusal of the supporting affidavit also shows that the appellant/petitioner has contended that he has a right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to seek for pension. However, having regard to the enormous delay of nearly 49 years in approaching this Court, the writ court, by order dated 21.01.2015, had dismissed the writ petition.

5. Mr.M. Muthukaruppan, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner reiterated the same grounds in the writ appeal and further contended that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court, as the appellant has filed the writ petition after exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal and review, as provided for in relevant Rules, and in support of his contention, he referred to the following decisions:-

(ii) (2001) 6 SCC 569 – Punjab National Bank vs. O.C.Krishnan and Others, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

"6