IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, the limited scope of judicial review, and the need for evidence to support findings in disciplinary proceedings involving members of disciplined forces found intoxicated.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Kumar Birla, J

1. Heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 10.08.1989 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut as well as the order dated 24.12.1994 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the order dated 25.04.1997 passed by the Inspector General of Police and the order dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.709 of 2003.

3. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 7 years and 29 days in filing present petition on the date of reporting on 18.02.2011.

4. To explain the delay learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph nos. 2 and 14 to 37. The grounds for explaining the laches of 7 years and 29 days is that after decision of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2003, petitioner reached Allahabad on 01.01.2004 where some imposter met him at Allahabad Railway Station and took him to Advocate Shri Suresh Swaroop Saxena, who ultimately promised to file a petition and take all relevant papers along with expenses and get his signature on Vakalatnama and some other watermark papers on 01.01.2004 and Shri Suresh Swaroop Saxena also gave his landline number. The petitioner thereafter waited for six months. Thereafter on 04.08.2004 he was informed that a counter affidavit was called for. Subsequently, on 06.12.2004 it was informed that no counter affidavit was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner came to Allahabad on 08.07.2005 for filing rejoinder affidavit and expenses were also given. It is stated that the petitioner was in continuous touch with Shri Saxena and he always assured him that he need not to worry about the case and the case would come on his turn for hearing. Thereafter after waiting long time on 18.12.2010 he tried to contact with Shri Saxena, then some lady in the house of Shri Saxena took the phone and said that Shri Saxena is no more. Thereafter, petitioner came to Allahabad on 20.12.2010 and contacted the family of Shri Saxena and tried to find out records of his case, but the same cannot be found. Thereafter, he contacted the present counsel, who made enquiries and found that no such petition was filed in the name of the petitioner, namely, Noor Mohammad either in the Allahabad High Court or in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad. The petitioner, therefore, engaged the present counsel and handed over all the relevant papers after obtaining fresh certified copy of the order dated 22.10.2003 and thereafter the present petition was filed by Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner and such huge delay is liable to be condoned.

6. Although, the explanation so submitted seems to be faultless, however, we are not impressed as the petitioner, who was working as Constable in civil police was dismissed from service is undisputedly a literate person and in case the alleged petition was filed by the earlier counsel, he neither tried to take copy of the petition, nor copy of the counter affidavit or copy of the rejoinder affidavit filed in such petition for long seven years. Further, he not even cared to ask the number of the writ petition allegedly filed at his instance from the counsel for all such long more than 7 years, therefore, we are not convinced with the explanation so submitted.

7. We have also noticed that Claim Petition no.709 of 2003 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was also not within one year of limitation as against the order dated 25.04.1997 the claim petition was filed after six years on 13.08.2003.

8. However, in view of the fact that present petition is pending for the last 13 years and affidavits have also been exchanged, we proceed to consider the case on merits.

9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that c