Back
2017 Supreme(Manipur) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KH. NOBIN SINGH, J.
CHANAM CHAOBA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MANIPUR - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 632 of 2015
Decided on : 21-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Kh. Chonjon, Sr. Advocate asstd. by Shri Th. Subol, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri R.K. Umakanta, Addl. GA and Shri K.R. Pamei, Advocate
Delay or laches is a factor to be considered when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially in cases involving violations of fundamental rights.
Headnote:
Resignation - Discharge from Service - Rule 8 of the Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur - Ahmad Hassan & anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Manipur, AIR 1963 Manipur 51 - Vigilance Manual vide OM dated 06.05.1958 of the Ministry of Home Affairs - Assam Sanmita Mahasanga v. Union of India, (2015) 3 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former police officer, challenged his discharge from service in 1960, claiming it was based on a misinterpretation of his protest note as a resignation letter. He made numerous representations over the years, including to the Manipur Human Rights Commission and the Prime Minister, seeking redressal and pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition not maintainable due to the delay of over 55 years in filing the petition and the rejection of a previous petition due to a delay of 49 years. The court emphasized the importance of timely redressal and the need to consider delay or laches when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: Competency of Superintendent of Police to issue discharge order, maintainability of the petition due to delay, and violation of fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay or laches is a factor to be considered when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that delay without more would not be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on any petitioner, especially in cases involving violations of fundamental rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to the delay of over 55 years in filing the petition and the rejection of a previous petition due to a delay of 49 years. It emphasized the importance of timely redressal and the need to consider delay or laches when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
KH. NOBIN SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Kh. Chonjon, the learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Subol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K.R. Pamei, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State Respondents.
2. The subject matter in issue involved herein is probably the oldest one in this High Court, in the sense that the order being O.B. No. 1102 dated 04.06.1960 is under challenge in this writ petition.
3.1. The facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed by his Highness, the Maharaja of Manipur as a Constable of the erstwhile Manipur State Police on 03.02.1944 under Rule 8 of the Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur. On 06.06.1944 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Asstt. Sub-Inspector and was further promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector vide order dated 30.09.1950. The petitioner, while in service, completed his graduation; passed the prescribed departmental examination under the Assam Public Service Commission in the year 1956 and cadet's training from Barrakpur PTC, West Bengal. While the petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector, he was superseded by one Shri Th. Shandabihari Singh as Inspector on the plea of his being a graduate and very shortly thereafter, the petitioner learnt of a recommendation made for promotion of one untrained matriculate Jr. Sub-Inspector without considering his case. Being aggrieved by the action of the authorities, he made a protest note / representation dated 22.08.1959 to the Superintendent of Police, Manipur, with an advance copy to the Hon'ble the Chief Commissioner, Manipur for favour of information, praying for consideration of his promotion by holding a Review DPC.
3.2. As a bolt from the blue and to his utter shock and surprise, the Superintendent of Police, Manipur instead of recommending his name for promotion, issued an order being O.B. No. 1102 dated 04.06.1960 by treating his protest note / representation for promotion as a resignation letter. Being aggrieved by the said discharge order dated 04.06.1960, the petitioner made various representations to the State Government and its authorities from time to time including the representation dated 11.03.1998 which was disposed of by the State Government vide its letter dated 13.10.1998 to the effect that the State Government has carefully examined the representation and rejected the same as his case being too old and opening of such a case will unsettle the already settled cases.
3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Manipur Human Rights Commission for redressal of his grievance on the allegation that his request for grant of pensionary benefits / compensation was not considered for more than sixteen years and in response thereto, the State Home Department addressed a letter dated 28.06.2004 to the Deputy Secretary, Manipur Human Rights Commission taking a similar stand as indicated in the letter dated 13.10.1998 and on the basis of the stand taken by the State Government, the Manipur Human Rights Commission vide its proceeding dated 03.06.2005 closed the case by observing that the petitioner may approach the proper court of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
3.4. On 23.01.2011 the petitioner approached the Chief Secretary, Manipur praying for taking appropriate action in the matter of discharging him illegally from the service but to no effect and thereafter, he approached the State Government by way of an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, through the Chief Information Commissioner, for furnishing information as regards the so called resignation letter said to have been received from him. The State Government turned down the request for furnishing information sought for by him on the ground that the records pertaining to his resignation; acceptance thereof and particulars of the officer passing the order of dis
