[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Ray vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 27 January, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
(2026:JHHC:2011)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S). No. 6730 of 2022
Manoj Kumar Ray, aged about 52 years, son of Kameshwar Ray,
resident of village - Jamuaon, PO & PS - Bhojpur, District - Bhojpur
(Bihar). ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block PO & PS - North Block, New Delhi, District - New
Delhi.
2. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone
Headquarter, Boring Road, PO & PS - Patliputra, District - Patna,
(Bihar).
3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industry Security Force, Bokaro
Steel Plant, PO & PS - Bokaro Steel City, District - Bokaro.
4. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant,
PO & PS - Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
: Mr. R. K. Gupta, CGC
: Ms. Shivani Jalika, AC to ASGI
---
th
07/27 January 2026
1. An order must attain finality. There has to be a quietus to a
proceeding.
2. A person who is aggrieved by the order cannot be allowed to
challenge the same whenever he wishes so. A person who sleeps
over his right cannot be allowed to challenge the same, any fine
morning when he wakes up from his deep slumber.
3. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has been dismissed from
service after a proper disciplinary enquiry on 30th July 2002. The
(2026:JHHC:2011)
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which the petitioner
had replied and thereafter, a departmental proceeding was
concluded and finally he was dismissed by considering the gravity
of the charges.
4. After the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which
was dismissed on 21st November 2002. The petitioner also
preferred a revision which was also dismissed on 12th June 2003.
Thereafter the petitioner slept and slept too long a period only to
wake-up in the year 2022 to file this writ petition challenging his
order of dismissal. Even if the order is of dismissal, but this Court
cannot allows a person who sleeps for 20 years to wake-up and
challenge the same. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of
Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley & Others reported in (2024)
15 SCC 551 at Paragraph No. 9 has held as under:-
9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of
the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been
non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An
applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other
words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of
time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be
granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This
Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity.
Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born
in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a
given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant
to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift
away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the
lapsed cause of action.
5. Thus, in view of the judgment cited above and the serious delay
and latches on part of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain
(2026:JHHC:2011)
entertain this writ petition exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Aditi
Dated: - 27th January 2026
Uploaded on:- 03.02.2026
