IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 Nirdesh Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Lalit M. Barara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Centre Commander (Home Guard), Bhiwani, Haryana, vide which, the petitioner has been terminated/discharged from service. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection and appointment on the post of Home Guard Volunteer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Volunteer Swayam Sewak (Home Guard) in the office of District Commander, Bhiwani, in the month of July, 2014. The petitioner was terminated/discharged from service vide order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P-1). As per the petitioner, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 02.07.2019 to know, as on what basis, the petitioner was terminated/discharged from service. It transpires that the concerned authority vide reply dated 13.09.2019 stated that the petitioner was found guilty of indiscipline in the concerned department and was also guilty of violence with other home guards. As such, the petitioner was terminated/discharged from service. The petitioner also moved an application/representation dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) after 02 years before the Director General of Police (Home Guard), Chandigarh for re-joining as Volunteer Swayam Sewak (Home Guard), however, no action was taken by the concerned department on the abovesaid application. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in terminating/discharging the petitioner from service vide order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexue P-1) vide which, the petitioner was terminated/discharged from service. As such, the abovesaid order of termination/discharge from service is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that the petitioner was discharged from service due to his indiscipline act of destroying the image of the department in public. As such, the order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P-1), vide which, petitioner has been terminated/discharged from service is legal and valid. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the present writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 3 years, as such, the same is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the present writ petition would show that the present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 3 years. No valid explanation has been given in regard to filing the present writ petition after such an inordinate delay.

7. It is well-settled law that where there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that no explanation has been given by the petitioner in knocking the doors of this Court after such an inordinate delay.

8. In State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that