A litigant who suppresses pending proceedings is disentitled to discretionary writ relief.

The petitioner, a Sthai Karmi, challenged his termination dated 06.08.2024 following a departmental enquiry into alleged forest offences.

He argued that the enquiry was conducted ex parte, that he was not supplied the enquiry report or given a second show-cause notice, and that a criminal trial on related charges was pending.

The State submitted that the petitioner had received repeated opportunities to participate in the enquiry, had already filed a separate petition challenging the charge-sheet, and had a departmental appeal against the termination pending.

The Court also noted that the writ petition declared that no proceeding on the subject matter had previously been instituted, without disclosing the earlier petition.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 despite allegedly concealing the pending earlier proceeding concerning the same disciplinary action.

2. Whether the pending departmental appeal and the enquiry record provided grounds to entertain the petitioner’s challenge to termination.

The Court treated jurisdiction under Article 226 as extraordinary, discretionary, and equitable, requiring a litigant to disclose material facts candidly and approach the Court with clean hands.

Applying Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, it held that material suppression or misleading the Court may justify dismissal of a writ petition without examination of its merits.

The Court also relied on the principle that a delinquent employee who deliberately fails to participate in an enquiry cannot ordinarily rely on denial of natural justice arising from that non-participation.

The petitioner’s declaration that no prior proceeding had been instituted was inconsistent with the pending M.P. No. 3228 of 2024, which challenged the charge-sheet forming part of the same disciplinary action. The Court considered this concealment material and an abuse of process.

It further noted that the petitioner had a pending departmental appeal and that the enquiry record showed repeated opportunities to participate, which he did not use.

On those grounds, the Court found no justification to entertain the writ petition.

No order as to costs was made.