THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.30300 of 2017

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined the

Central Reserve Police Force as Constable in the year 1991; and while serving in the 3^rd respondent-CRPF Battalion, he received a phone call that his father was kidnapped, and that his sister was seriously ill, and he applied for 5 days leave, initially, and later requested for extension of leave. Further, as the petitioner too fell ill, he could not report back to duty. On the ground that he was on unauthorised absence for 78 days, he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service by Order dated 20.04.1999. His appeal before the 1st respondent was rejected by order dated 23.07.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ

petition.

2. Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, and contends that the impugned order of removal from service, and rejection of appeal

by the 1^st respondent are illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, based on the counter affidavit, contends that the petitioner applied for five days casual leave in April 1998 due to his sister’s illness, and his request for further leave was refused due to the battalion’s impending movement to Manipur and service exigency; and despite refusal, the petitioner left the unit on 27.04.1998 without permission and remained absent for 78 days. An FIR was lodged and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. A Court of Inquiry was also initiated to declare him unauthorised absentee. Subsequently, the petitioner reported back to the duty voluntarily, whereupon the warrant and inquiry proceedings were cancelled, and a Departmental enquiry was conducted, during which the petitioner submitted certain medical certificates, and the charges of unauthorized absence were proved, and therefore the petitioner was removed from service by order dated Order dated 20.04.1999, and his appeal also was rejected by order dated 23.07.1999. It is further contended that there is a delay of 18 years in filing the writ petition, and there is no adequate explanation for the delay, and therefore the writ petition is liable for dismissal.

4. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, at the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned Order of removal from service was passed on 20.04.1999, and the appeal against the removal order was rejected on 23.07.1999. This writ petition is filed in the year 2017. There is a delay of almost 18 years in approaching this Court, and there is no plausible explanation for the occurrence of such an inordinate delay.

5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, wherein the writ appeals filed by the Road Transport Corporation were allowed on the ground that the respondent therein (employee) approached the Court with a delay of 18 years from the date of impugned punishment. In the said writ appeals, the Hon’ble Division, by referring to Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1991 Supp(1) SCC 504), observed as follows:

“The delay of 5 to 18 years was held to be inordinate delay in preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

6. In the instant case, in view of the inordinate delay of 18 years in agitating the grievance against the impugned proceedings, the writ petition is liable for dismissal on this sole ground alone; and therefore this Court does not deem it relevant to refer to the merits of the matter.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed; however, considering that the petitioner had served the respondent organization for about 9 years prior to his removal from service, the terminal/service benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner as per the Rules applicable, shall be processed and paid to the petitioner in accord