108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:15.12.2025 Sunil Kumar ….Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Bobby Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

i Order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-5) whereby punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed upon him;

ii Order dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-17) whereby he was dismissed from service;

iii Order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P-18) whereby his appeal was dismissed by Inspector General, H.A.P., Madhuban;

and iv Order dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P-19) whereby his appeal was dismissed by DGP, Haryana He is further seeking direction to respondent No. 2-DGP to decide his Mercy Appeal dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-20).

2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police Force in March’ 2004. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 07.07.2008 on account of his absence from duty for 46 days. He was issued show cause notice dated 05.09.2008, 27.09.2008 and 03.11.2008 proposing punishment of dismissal from service on account of absence from duty. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.11.2008 on account of absence from duty for 225 days. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2009. He further preferred revision which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2013 passed by Director General of Police (DGP). He preferred mercy petition dated 10.02.2021 before DGP seeking reinstatement.

3. The revision petition was dismissed by DGP on 27.12.2013. There was no provision to file Mercy Appeal before DGP still petitioner in 2021 i.e. after more than seven years preferred Mercy Appeal before DGP. He has approached this Court after 12 years from the date of order passed by DGP. The impugned orders are quasi judicial and ought to be challenged within reasonable period. There is no explanation for the aforesaid delay except that petitioner was perusing his remedy before DGP.

4. 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 that 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.

5. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in ‘Mrinmoy Maity Vs. 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 non-suited 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 be