The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of writ applications and found no procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings.

L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as Rifleman of SP Coy in 7th Bn. Manipur Rifles, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 28.6.2004 passed by the Commandant, 7th Bn. Manipur Rifles dismissing him from service in pursuance of departmental proceedings. The petitioner, while working as Rifleman of SP Coy, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him on allegation of commission of grave misconduct, negligence in duty and cowardice attitude while detailed as sentry at the barrack which was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force.

2. The charges against the petitioner were that on 01.10.2001 at about 0045 hours some armed militants entered inside the residential complex of the Dy. Commissioner, Bishnupur and overpowered the petitioner and another while on sentry duty on the Sentry Post of the barrack and snatched away arms and ammunitions from them without any resistance from their side. It is alleged that because of their cowardish and negligence in duty the incident happened and as many as 10 (ten) arms and ammunitions were snatched away by overpowering them without any chance of retaliation.

3. The Deputy Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 25.3.2002. However, in course of enquiry he retired and another Enquiry Officer was appointed who completed the enquiry. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Office found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and was given an opportunity of making a representation against the said enquiry report. On consideration of the enquiry report as well as the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service and also directed that pay and allowances for the period he was under suspension shall be restricted to subsistence allowance only. Challenging the said order of dismissal from service, the present writ application has been filed.

4. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A., with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submitted that there has been inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Though the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 28.6.2004, writ application has been filed in 2012 and there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition explaining such long delay of 8 (eight) years in filing the writ petition. It was also contended by learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondents that the departmental proceedings was conducted as per the rules and petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of hearing and there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental proceedings. Considering the nature of charges, the disciplinary authority found it fit to impose penalty of dismissal from service and therefore there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the said order.

5. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that along with the petitioner another constable was also charged with similar allegation. Similar incidents also took place at other places and sentries facing departmental proceeding with similar charges had approached Court and got relief. Therefore, only after those cases were disposed of, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition and accordingly there has been a delay of about 8 (eight) years. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that in course of the departmental proceeding the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appoint defence assistant and the enquiry officer conducted the proceeding entirely as the Prosecutor and Presenting Officer appointed on behalf of the department never acted as a Prosecutor.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner has filed this writ application almost 8 (eight) years after the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed. Nowhere in the writ petition the petitioner has made any statement explaining such delay in approaching the Court. In course of hearing the learned cou