Delay in filing a writ petition can bar claims for relief, especially in service matters, as established by the principles of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this 3rd writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting-aside the orders dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) and dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits i.e. leave encashment, gratuity, pension, GPF, etc., along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk in the department on ad hoc basis on 15.02.1977 and thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized in year 1983. The petitioner used to remain absent from duty and therefore, the enquiry was conducted against him and in the enquiry report, it was recommended by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not keeping good health and also produced medical documents to prove his illness, therefore, being satisfied with the said medical documents concluded that the absent period of the petitioner be treated as leave period as the petitioner remained ill and was taking treatment, however, the petitioner be compulsorily retired from the service of the Board vide enquiry report dated 06.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the 1st petition i.e. CWP No.6488 of 2017 for releasing the pensionary benefits, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.09.2017, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities at an first instance. Pursuant thereto, petitioner approached the authorities and filed representation dated 23.09.2017, but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner filed 2nd petition i.e. CWP No.26637 of 2019, for release of his pensionary benefits and the said petition was disposed of on 19.09.2019, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In compliance with the above order, respondent No.2, vide order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-3), decided the representation of the petitioner holding that since the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.04.2010, as such he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Enquiry Officer was satisfied that the medical documents produced by the petitioner, were genuine and the petitioner was suffering from illness, therefore, he has wrongly recommended the case of the petitioner for compulsorily retirement. He further submits that the petitioner only came to know about his dismissal from service vide order dated 28.04.2010, however, before his dismissal from service, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted by respondent No.2 to him to prove his stand and therefore, the punishment so awarded is disproportionate and too harsh and needs to be set-aside. Lastly, he submits that the respondents - Corporation failed to release his retrial benefits i.e. leave encashment, gratuity, pension, GPF, etc.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was working in the office of Additional Executive Engineer Operation, Agar Nagar, Division Ludhiana and he remained absent from his duty from 09.04.2003 to 16.04.2003 and from 05.05.2003 continuously and accordingly, a charge-sheet No.C-280 dated 25.07.2003 was issued to the petitioner and another charge-sheet No.C-280 dated 16.08.2005 was issued to the petitioner for remaining absent from 29.11.2004 to 30.11.2004 and 13.12.2004 to 14.12.2004 and further from 08.03.2005 to 14.03.2005 and both the charge-sheets were received by the petitioner on 10.12.2003 and 22.06.2006, respectively and the petitioner filed reply to the said charge-sheets stating that he was unable to join the duty being habitu