[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 January, 2026
CWP-910-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-910-2026
Date of Decision: 19.01.2026
Rajeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Parveen Mehta, Additional Advocate General, 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 punishment order vide
which he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with
permanent effect.
2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police
Force. While working as Security Agent in office of Inspector General of
Police, Rewari, he was implicated, on the basis of disclosure statement of an
accused, in FIR 446 dated 16.08.2014 under Sections 407 and 411 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him alleging
that he used to take bribe of ₹5,000/- per month from accused in afore-stated
FIR. A preliminary inquiry against him was conducted by Deputy
Superintendent of Police who submitted his report dated 25.08.2014 holding
him guilty of alleged charges. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated
against him vide order dated 06.03.2015. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Nuh exonerated him of the charges vide order dated 03.11.2015. However,
1 of 5
Superintendent of Police, Nuh while disagreeing with the findings of Deputy
Superintendent of Police issued show cause notice-cum-disagreement note
proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Meanwhile, he was
transferred to District Mahendergarh and Superintendent of Police,
Mahendergarh filed his departmental inquiry. Thereafter, Inspector General
of Police, South Range, Rewari called file of petitioner and by invoking
Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana)
(for short as 'PPR') again issued disagreement note along with show cause
notice of even date dated 19.09.2016 proposing punishment of forfeiture of
two increments with permanent effect. He was given opportunity to file
response to the same. He filed his reply and impugned punishment order
dated 10.11.2016 came to be passed against him awarding punishment of
forfeiture of two annual increments with permanent effect. He preferred
appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2017 passed by
Director General of Police, Haryana.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court in 2026 and is
assailing order dated 19.04.2017 whereby Appellate Authority has dismissed
his appeal.
4. On being asked reason of inordinate delay in assailing
impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
recurring cause, thus, writ petition is maintainable.
5. 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 the
claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
2 of 5
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.
6. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy
Maity v. 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
nonsuited 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
3 of 5
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 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."
7. The petitioner claims that his cause is recurring in nature, thus,
writ is maintainable. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
4 of 5
04.04.2018 in Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, HVPNL and others,
CWP No.26962 of 2015, after noticing various judgments of Apex Court,
has dismissed similar contention.
8. This Court vide order dated 03.05.2015 in Sandeep Kharab v.
State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5965 of 2011; order dated
04.09.2012 in Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18498
of 2011 and order 29.11.2012 in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and others, CWP No.13965 of 2010 has dismissed
petitions on the ground that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the will
and convenience of the litigant. Anyone who claims rights must be vigilant
and he must enforce his rights within reasonable time.
9. There is no explanation for delay and as per the petitioner, he
can approach Court at any point of time because he has a recurring cause.
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.
10. In the wake of afore-cited judgments and 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
19.01.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
