JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of punishment order vide which he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.

2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police Force. While working as Security Agent in office of Inspector General of Police, Rewari, he was implicated, on the basis of disclosure statement of an accused, in FIR 446 dated 16.08.2014 under Sections 407 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him alleging that he used to take bribe of Rs.5,000/- per month from accused in afore-stated FIR. A preliminary inquiry against him was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police who submitted his report dated 25.08.2014 holding him guilty of alleged charges. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 06.03.2015. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuh exonerated him of the charges vide order dated 03.11.2015. However, Superintendent of Police, Nuh while disagreeing with the findings of Deputy Superintendent of Police issued show cause notice-cum-disagreement note proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Meanwhile, he was transferred to District Mahendergarh and Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh filed his departmental inquiry. Thereafter, Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari called file of petitioner and by invoking Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short as ‘PPR’) again issued disagreement note along with show cause notice of even date dated 19.09.2016 proposing punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect. He was given opportunity to file response to the same. He filed his reply and impugned punishment order dated 10.11.2016 came to be passed against him awarding punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments with permanent effect. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2017 passed by Director General of Police, Haryana.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court in 2026 and is assailing order dated 19.04.2017 whereby Appellate Authority has dismissed his appeal.

4. On being asked reason of inordinate delay in assailing impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is recurring cause, thus, writ petition is maintainable.

5. 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 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.

6. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. 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 equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner