IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition is not maintainable if a civil suit for the same relief has been withdrawn without liberty, and delay in seeking relief can bar a claim.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of inquiry report dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-6) whereby penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay has been imposed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the same set of allegations, the petitioner was subjected to departmental as well as criminal proceedings. The petitioner on the one hand was subjected to punishment of reduction of pay by order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the disciplinary authority and on the other hand, he was made to face criminal trial. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) acquitted the petitioner on the ground that prosecution has not led evidence in terms of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority deserves to be set aside in view of judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court.

3. On being asked, Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was pursuing trial pending against him, thus, he could not assail order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was mentally depressed and he sought voluntary retirement in 2019. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not avail remedy against the impugned order. With respect to withdrawal of civil suit, he submits that suit was withdrawn at the initial stage, thus, it cannot come in the way of present writ petition.

4. The conceded position emerging from record is that the petitioner was departmentally punished vide order dated 18.01.2017. The petitioner did not file appeal against the said order. On the same set of allegations, the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings as well as criminal trial. The petitioner came to be acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2019. The petitioner even after acquittal neither opted to file appeal against the order of disciplinary authority nor filed petition before this Court. The petitioner filed civil suit which was withdrawn without liberty.

5. The Apex Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) thr. LRs & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527, has held that writ petition is not maintainable where civil suit for the same relief has been withdrawn without liberty.

6. In the case in hand, the petitioner admittedly filed civil suit for the same relief as is claimed in the present petition. The civil suit was withdrawn. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by recent judgment of Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan Das (supra).

7. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

8. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962 of 2015, after noticing various judgments of Apex Court has dismissed similar petition on the ground that writ petition has been filed after a long time from the date of retirement.

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2015 in Sandeep Kharab v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5965 of 2011; order dated 04.09.2012 in Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18498 of 2011 and order 29.11.2012 in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP No.13965 of 2010 has dismisse