[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2025
CWP No. 35688 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 35688 of 2025
Date of Decision:01.12.2025
Tarsem Singh
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.04.2006
passed by Disciplinary Authority whereby he was awarded punishment of
forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect for absence from duty. He
is further seeking setting aside of order dated 30.12.2008 passed by
Appellate Authority and order dated 09.11.2017 passed by Revisionary
Authority whereby his punishment of stoppage of one increment with
permanent effect was converted into forfeiture of one increment with
temporary effect.
2. The petitioner remained absent from 12.06.2005 to 20.07.2005
due to his involvement in FIR No.210 dated 13.06.2005. The Disciplinary
1 of 5
Authority initiated departmental proceedings against him for absence from
duty. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with
permanent effect vide order dated 21.4.2006. He was acquitted by trial Court
vide judgment dated 13.09.2005. He preferred an appeal before Appellate
Authority which came to be dismissed on 30.12.2008. He further preferred
revision and Revisionary Authority vide order dated 09.11.2017 converted
his punishment from forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect to
forfeiture of one increment with temporary effect. He filed representation
before Government in 2022 as well as 2025.
3. The petitioner preferred appeal before Appellate Authority after
three and a half years. The instant petition has been filed after 08 years from
the date of order passed by Revisionary Authority. He preferred
representation to Government in 2022 which was followed by representation
dated 09.10.2025. There was inordinate delay in filing appeal before
Appellate Authority and further there is delay of 08 years in filing instant
petition before this Court.
4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High
Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who
moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches.
Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that
the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole
ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are
pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate
delay.
2 of 5
5. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy
Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held
that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches
where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the
Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable
period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay
defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity
on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and
attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple
communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the
judgment are reproduced as below:
"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 latches 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 latches 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.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and
caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the
3 of 5
writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of
the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the
contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be
condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise
to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all
depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot
be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical
precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ
court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain
in which the facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no
fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to
be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been
invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the
dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has
had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of
delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the
applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ
petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought
to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as
the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent
litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there
cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court
will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and
latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ
court."
5. On being asked, the petitioner has failed to explain reason for
inordinate delay. The petitioner by his act and conduct acquiesced action of
the respondent and at this belated stage wants to make hay while the Sun
shines. Case of the petitioner is badly hit by doctrine of delay and laches.
4 of 5
6. Considering inordinate delay on the part of petitioner, this Court
does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The
present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
5 of 5
