JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting side of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect.

2. The petitioner joined Police Force as Constable on 01.08.2007. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent for 10 days during Jat reservation agitation. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.07.2016 awarded him punishment of stoppage of 10 increments with permanent effect. He preferred an appeal which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.05.2017. He preferred revision which came to be partially allowed vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed by Director General of Police, Haryana. The quantum of punishment was reduced from stoppage of 10 increments to 2 increments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was wrongly implicated. He had not committed alleged offence. The Inquiry Officer did not appreciate evidence in true spirit and held him guilty. The higher authorities have passed impugned orders without application of mind.

4. On being asked reason of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any plausible reason for inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

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, 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.

6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently 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 ought to have been nonsuited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained