Taqdir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 212 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Taqdir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 January, 2024

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893




CWP-147-2024                            1            2024:PHHC:000893

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                          ***

                                               CWP-147-2024
                                               Date of decision : 08.01.2024

Taqdir Singh

                                                     ... Petitioner

                   Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                                     ... Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr.Monit Pal Singh, Advocate and
            Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G. Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the order dated 24.09.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

Superintendent of Police, Panipat whereby the petitioner was awarded the

punishment of stoppage of his one annual future increment with permanent

effect. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 31.12.2013

(Annexure P-3) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range,

Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and to

the order dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director General

of Police, Haryana whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner

has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had joined

the police department as Constable on 15.04.1992 and on 18.03.2002 the

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

CWP-147-2024 2 2024:PHHC:000893

petitioner was deployed on security of the outer wall of the CM residence

Niwas at Chandigarh. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner was found absent from his

duty by Inspector Sham Sunder who was Incharge of Platoon Commando,

Chandigarh, at 04:15 am on 18.03.2002 and thereafter, ASI Ramesh Chand

called the petitioner to explain the reasons for his absence and the petitioner

appeared before him without wearing uniform and also misbehaved with

him. The said act of the petitioner was found to be of grave misconduct.

The due procedure in the enquiry was followed and 9 prosecution witnesses

were examined and the petitioner also got examined 3 defence witnesses

and vide order dated 01.08.2002 the enquiry officer held the petitioner

guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Superintendent of Police,

Panipat vide order dated 24.09.2002 partially disagreed with the enquiry

officer and held the petitioner guilty of only misbehaviour with the senior

officers and observed that the petitioner was not supposed to overact and

wear short and vest while appearing before the senior officers and after

taking a lenient view, awarded the punishment of stoppage of one annual

increment with permanent effect.

3. The petitioner, after a period of more than 11 years, filed an

appeal, which was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar

Range, Hisar, vide order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-3). In the said

order, it was observed that the appeal had been filed after more than 11

years and 2 months and there was no cogent reason for condoning the said

delay whereas according to Rule 16.30 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934

as applicable to the State of Haryana, the appeal was required to be filed

within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order dated

24.09.2002 (Annexure P-1). The appeal was thus, dismissed on the ground

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

CWP-147-2024 3 2024:PHHC:000893

of being time barred. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition,

which was also dismissed by the Director General of Police, vide order

dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure P-5). A perusal of the said order would show

that it was observed by the Director General of Police that the departmental

enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the rules and procedure and

there is no legal infirmity in the same and that even the revision petition has

been filed after a delay of 16 days which is beyond the prescribed period of

one month as is mentioned in Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules. It was

observed in the said order that the rejection of the appeal by the appellate

authority was on the ground that the same had been filed after a period of 11

years and that the previous service record of the petitioner revealed that he

was a habitual absentee. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed on

the grounds of being time barred and also being devoid of merit. After more

than a period of 9 years of the passing of the said order, the petitioner has

filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the averments made in the

present writ petition would show that no reason has been given for delay of

the said 9 years in approaching this Court.

4. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the

petitioner has not been able to give any plausible reason for the delay of 9

years in filing the present writ petition after the passing of the order dated

02.01.2015 (Annexure P-5).

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has

perused the paper book.

6. The present petition has been filed after a period of more than 9

years from the passing of the order dated 02.01.2015. There is no plausible

explanation for the said delay. Even the first appeal filed by the petitioner

was after a delay of more than 11 years and was rightly dismissed by the

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

CWP-147-2024 4 2024:PHHC:000893

first appellate authority vide order dated 31.12.2013 on the ground of being

time barred as the said appeal was required to be filed within a period of 30

days from the date of passing of the order dated 24.09.2002 whereas the

same was filed in the year 2013. The revisional authority has also not

interfered with the orders dated 24.09.2002 (Annexure P-1) and 31.12.2013

(Annexure P-3). This Court is of the view that the present writ petition

deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as no plausible

explanation has been given for the delay of 9 years in filing the present writ

petition after the passing of the order dated 02.01.2015.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a petition

filed after an unexplained lapse of time should not be entertained and mere

filing of repeated representations or even directions to decide said

representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Regarding this

aspect, reference is made to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage

Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu" reported as 2014(4) SCC 108 in

which one of the grounds for setting aside the judgment of the High Court

was the fact that the petitioner therein had approached the High Court after

a delay of 4 years and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it

was the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such an enormous delay is

to be ignored and the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that

interference by the High Court after a lapse of 4 years was unjustified and

that the writ petition should not have been entertained.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case "State of

Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others"

reported as 2013(12) SCC 179 had observed that repeated representations or

reply to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

CWP-147-2024 5 2024:PHHC:000893

a stale or dead claim and that the issue of limitation or delay should be

considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with

reference to the date on which an order was passed in compliance of the

Court's directions and neither a court's direction to consider a representation

issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance

with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.

9. In "Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh &

Anr." reported as 2006(11) SCC 464, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

rejected the claim of the persons who were guilty of delay and had

approached the Courts after some years and had sought to raise the plea that

similarly situated persons, who had filed the writ petitions earlier, had been

granted the relief.

10. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Uttaranchal's case (supra) has further been referred to in the latest

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of West Bengal

Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others reported as 2023-SCC-Online-SC-

219. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which dis-entitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M. R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that dis-entitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under A Article 226Â of the Constitution. 38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words:

"9. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

CWP-147-2024 6 2024:PHHC:000893 Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay. it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of thirdparty rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."

xxx xxx xxx

40. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005- 2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations were made:

"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."

11. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the

law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, the present writ petition deserves

to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE January 08, 2024.

Davinder Kumar
                 Whether speaking / reasoned                                           Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                                    Yes/No




                                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000893

                                        6 of 6