JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 20.04.1999. He remained absent from duty from 05.04.2008 to 28.06.2008 due to an accident. He was issued show cause notice dated 18.09.2008 on account of 84 days unauthorised absence from duty. He was dismissed by respondent vide order dated 19.11.2008. Period from 20.06.2008 to 21.08.2008 was treated as suspension period. He preferred a spate of appeals before Authorities. Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab dismissed his appeal for reinstatement on 29.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was involved in an accident due to which he was admitted in Civil Hospital Sangrur, Patiala. He was unconscious and suffered fractures. The departmental inquiry was initiated without considering the facts and circumstances of the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2004 on account of remaining absent from duty for 64 days. DIGP, Security, Punjab vide order dated 02.08.2005 reinstated him in service. He was again dismissed from service vide order dated 17.11.2005 on account of absence from duty. He was again reinstated w.e.f. 10.09.2007 and punishment was reduced to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. He was third time dismissed from service vide order dated 19.11.2008 on account of absence from duty. He was awarded three more punishments on account of absence from duty. He remained absent from duty for 662 days and his 14 years’ service was forfeited. He had served for a very small period i.e. 8 years. He preferred appeal before DIG against impugned dismissal order which was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2009. He filed second appeal before IGP which was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2009. He again filed appeal before ADGP which was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012 on the ground of maintainability. He filed five appeals before DGP which came to be dismissed vide orders dated 02.12.2014, 17.05.2017, 05.06.2018, 20.11.2018 and 19.07.2021. He also filed petitions before Home Department which were rejected vide orders dated 03.10.2018, 29.02.2024, 04.03.2024 and 18.04.2024.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was third time dismissed from service vide order dated 19.11.2008. His appeal was dismissed on 05.05.2009. He continued to file appeals before higher authorities from 2009 to 2024. His all the appeals were rejected. He was governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short “PPR”). In the PPR, there is no provision permitting repeated appeals. A period of more than one and a half decade from the date of orders passed by Appellate Authorities has passed away.

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, 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 two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in ‘Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equit