Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2018
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 458/2018 & C.M.No.1989/2018
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vijay Joshi, Sr.Panel Counsel
with Mr.D.D.Ram (AC CISF)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 17.01.2018
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2003, passed by
the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.5/Senior Commandant, CISF,
removing him from service, the order dated 24.10.2003, passed by the
Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.4/Dy.Inspector General, CISF,
rejecting his appeal after the order of removal from service and the order
dated 26.02.2010, passed by the respondent No.3/Inspector General, CISF,
rejecting his mercy petition. The petitioner prays that he be reinstated in
service from 01.02.2003, with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case as elicited from the petition are that the petitioner
was inducted in the CISF as a Head Constable (Driver) in the year 1998. On
14.02.2001, when the petitioner was driving an official vehicle in
Chattisgarh, an accident took place which resulted in the death of a
motorcycle rider. Apart from criminal proceedings initiated against him, a
charged memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2002, wherein
two articles of charge were framed against him and an inquiry was
conducted by the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 02.12.2002.
After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2003, whereunder he
concurred with the findings returned by the Inquiry officer and held the
petitioner guilty on both the charges framed against him. Resultantly, a
penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.02.2003 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2003. We may note that
though the petitioner had the option of preferring a revision against the order
of the Appellate Authority, but did not exercise the said option. Instead,
after waiting for five and a half years, the petitioner submitted a 'mercy
petition' before the respondent No.1/Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of
India on 09.03.2009 which was rejected on 26.02.2010, with an observation
that he had failed to avail of the statutory departmental remedy by preferring
a revision against the Appellate order, within the prescribed period of six
months and the matter being over five years old, there was no provision in
the CISF Act and Rules for entertaining any mercy petition.
3. We may note here that much before the date he had preferred the
mercy petition, vide order dated 31.12.2004, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Dantewada, Chattisgarh had acquitted the petitioner in the criminal
proceedings initiated for an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and
the said order had attained finality. Despite the said position, the petitioner
did not take any steps for over five years, reckoned from 31.12.2004, the
date of the judgment, to approach the respondents for relief. Even after the
respondent No.1 had proceeded to reject the representation of the petitioner
on 26.02.2010, it has taken him all of eight years to file the present petition.
There is no explanation whatsoever for such an excessive delay in filing the
present petition.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we decline to exercise
the extraordinary power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, as the present petition is hopelessly barred by delay
and latches.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending
application.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
REKHA PALLI, J.
JANUARY 17, 2018
'pg'
