Full Judgment Text
2021:DHC:3229-DB
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.10.2021
+ W.P.(C) 11491/2021
GULAB CHAND YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Yatish Mohan and Mr.Achintya
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh, Sr. St. Counsel,
Mr.Preet Singh and Mr.Vipin
Chaudhary, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 35429/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11491/2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 14.03.2002 passed by the respondent no.4, ordering removal of the
petitioner from service on account of his unauthorized absence from duty, as
also praying for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to re-join
duty.
W.P.(C) 11491/2021 Page 1 of 5
2021:DHC:3229-DB
2. The petitioner was working as a Constable with the Railway Protection
Special Force and was posted at New Delhi. He was allowed to avail 21 days
special leave, one day rest and two days commuted leave (CL) with effect
from 08.06.2000 to 01.07.2000 and was to resume his duty on 02.07.2000.
As he did not do so inspite of several call notices issued to him, upon an ex-
parte inquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service vide
impugned Order dated 14.03.2002. The petitioner made representations
against the said order only in the years 2013 and 2014. The said
representations were rejected on the ground of delay by an order dated
17/19.10.2015.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while on leave, the
petitioner suffered a stroke leading to mental disorder for which he remained
under constant medical supervision of one Dr.Mahendra Pratap Yadav at his
Nursing Home Matwarganj, Azamgarh till 2013. Even the father of the
petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the petitioner and this fact was
to the knowledge of the respondents during the course of inquiry against the
petitioner.
4. He further states that the petitioner was not personally served with any
notice of inquiry and therefore, the inquiry has been conducted and concluded
ex-parte.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could
not earlier approach this Court as he was arranging for funds for filing the
writ petition. He further submits that this Court should take a lenient and
sympathetic view and grant the relief claimed in the petition.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, however, find no force in the same.
W.P.(C) 11491/2021 Page 2 of 5
2021:DHC:3229-DB
7. As noted hereinabove, the order of removal from service against the
petitioner was passed in March, 2002. The petitioner represented against the
same only in 2013/2014. The said representations of the petitioner were also
rejected in October, 2015. Prior thereto, as disclosed in the petition, the
petitioner had approached the High Court of Allahabad by way of a writ
petition, which also was dismissed on 29.07.2013 on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner
recovered from his mental illness in 2013. Barring stating that the petitioner
was arranging for funds for filing of the writ petition, there is no justifiable
explanation for the delay in filing of the present petition.
8. In Chairman/ Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. &
Ors. v. Ram Gopal , 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101, Supreme Court has held that
while the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced
after reasonable lapse of time; the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant
in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept
over their rights. The relevant quotation from the judgment is as under:
“ 15. Seen from a different perspective also, it is clear that
the Respondent has shown little concern to the settled legal
tenets. Even a civil suit challenging termination of
services, if filed by the Respondent, would have
undoubtedly been barred by limitation in 1990. In a similar
situation where the appellant belatedly challenged the
promotion of his junior(s), this Court in P.S.
Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152,
held as follows:
“2. … if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should
have approached the Court even in the year 1957, after
the two representations made by him had failed to
produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter
W.P.(C) 11491/2021 Page 3 of 5
2021:DHC:3229-DB
and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the
year 1971. … In effect he wants to unscramble a
scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to
consider whether any relaxation of the rules should
have been made in favour of the appellant in the year
1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957,
cannot be reproduced now. …It is not that there is any
period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never
be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter
after the passage of a certain length of time. But it
would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the
Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers
under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not
approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by
and allow things to happen and then approach the
Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle
settled matters……”
16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of
India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an
unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained
delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in
writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be
reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to
protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed
illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to
barge into courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated
alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has
been restated that there are implicit limitations of time
within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v.
State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 this Court observed
thus:
“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay
defeats equity”. …It is now a trite law that where the
writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long
delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the
W.P.(C) 11491/2021 Page 4 of 5
2021:DHC:3229-DB
ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that
they are similarly situated to the other candidates who
obtain the benefit of the judgment.” (emphasis
supplied)
17. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India,
(2012) 7 SCC 610 this Court while considering the claim
of candidates who, despite being higher in merit, exercised
their right to parity much after those who were though
lower in merit but were diligently agitating their rights,
this Court observed that:
“27. …It becomes an obligation to take into
consideration the balance of justice or injustice in
entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of
delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that
at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one
melts into total insignificance and paves the path of
the passage of time.
extinction with ”
9. In view of the inordinate delay in filing the present petition, the same is
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone. There shall be no order
as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 7, 2021/Arya/AB
W.P.(C) 11491/2021 Page 5 of 5