IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27405-2025 DECIDED ON: 15.09.2025 ASHOK KUMAR ….PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J *****

1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure P-1), along with the order dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner’s representation against the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 was rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to expunge the said adverse remarks, upgrade the grading for the aforesaid period, and to grant all consequential benefits flowing from such expunction and revised grading.

2. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the entry made in the ACR dated 08.06.2009, which contained adverse remarks including the notation of "integrity doubtful" by the reviewing authority. The said adverse remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner, being fully aware of the said entry, submitted a representation in response thereto in the year 2009. However, despite having knowledge of the adverse entry, the petitioner failed to avail any legal remedy at the relevant time and allowed the matter to rest.

3. The record further reveals that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Jails), Haryana, which also confirmed the adverse remarks. Instead, he approached the Governor, Government of Haryana, by way of a statutory appeal only on 25.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), which came to be rejected by the Finance Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana (Jails). The said appeal, styled as a "mercy appeal", filed at such a belated stage, does not vest any enforceable legal right in the petitioner so as to entitle him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. It is only upon denial of benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, allegedly due to the adverse entry in question, that the petitioner has now chosen to challenge the said remarks by filing the present writ petition after a lapse of more than sixteen years.

5. The present petition suffers from gross and unexplained delay and laches. The adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner in 2009, and the final order was passed in 2010. Yet, the petitioner has approached this Court only in 2025, i.e., after an inordinate and unjustifiable delay of over sixteen years. There is no cogent explanation forthcoming from the petitioner for this delay.

6. 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.

7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has articulated the doctrine of laches in Chairman/ Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Others Vs. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC Online SC

101 and held as under:

“Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect t