Delhi High Court
S. S. Verma vs Central Industrial Security Force ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: February 20, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 1979/2020 & CM APPL. 6922/2020
(18) S. S. VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shaharyar Ali and Mr. Ajay
Kumar Singh, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (THROUGH
DIRECTOR GENERAL) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, CGSC with
Mr. Nitin Chandra and Mr. A. Awhan
Mohapatra, Advs. with AC/F P A.
Sheejo, SI/T Prahald Devendra, SI/E
Amit Kumar, CT/Gd. Palve Nitesh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned
order dated 17.03.2006 in order No. V-
11014/APS/12/LC/05/2466 whereby the respondent
through its Inspector General has wrongly upheld the
By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Page 1
order of appellate authority which confirmed the penalty
imposed by disciplinary authority on the petitioner in
respect of charge framed vide charge memorandum dated
02.07.2004 which has been wrongly proved by the enquiry
officer.
(ii) Any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings which
have been initiated against him which culminated in an order of
penalty dated September 10, 2005, whereby his pay was reduced to a
lower stage from ₹3,880/- to ₹3,795 in the time-scale for a period of
two years with a further direction that he would not earn increments
of pay during the period of such reduction and that on expiry of this
period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future
increment of pay.
3. Concedingly, the appeal against the said penalty was dismissed
on March 17, 2006.
4. Apparently, we find that the challenge in this petition is to the
orders of the year 2005-2006. The petition has been filed in the year
2020, i.e., after a lapse of 14-15 years.
5. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to justify the delay
in approaching this Court. We have perused the affidavit, wherein it
is stated, the delay in filing the writ petition must be considered
liberally as proceedings are primarily invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Page 2
6. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Katiji and Ors.,
1987 (2) SCC 107, M/s. Dehry Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd.
v. District Board, Bhojpur & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 598 and Postmaster
General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 1992 (3) SCC
563. We note the Supreme Court in these judgment has inter alia
held that the doctrine of delay and laches must be applied in a rational
common sense pragmatic manner and when substantial justice and
technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot
claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-
deliberate delay and also that in a matter of condonation of delay
when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice. Suffice to state, it is not such a case herein. This
we say so because on perusing the contents of the affidavit, it is clear
that the delay has not been cogently and convincingly explained by
the petitioner.
7. It is also a settled position of law that any delay in filing the
petition has to be explained by cogent, convincing and persuasive
explanation to justify delay/condonation thereof. [Ref. Union of India
(UOI) and ors. v. Shri Hanuman Industries and ors.
MANU/SC/0580/2015].
8. The other plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been regularly transferred from one place to another in
By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Page 3
the Country and as such could not pursue the matter is also not
appealing as the petitioner was within his right to approach the Court
of competent jurisdiction at a place / nearer to the place where he was
posted.
9. The filing of this petition surely in the year 2020 that too after
filing of the representation for the first time in the year 2018 shall be
clearly hit by delay and laches. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2024/jg
By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 1979/2020 Page 4
