Ex. Constable Joginder Pal vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa. J.—The petitioner, who was serving as a Constable with the Punjab Police, was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.9.1994 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Roopnagar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 5.8.1998 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana. The petitioner availed of his statutory remedy of preferring a revision petition and the same was also dismissed in terms of order dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab. It is towards impugning such orders at Annexures P-1 to P-3 dated 23.9.1994, 5.8.1998 and 28.12.1998 that the present writ petition has been filed. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders would not require any examination on merits. The present writ petition suffers from an inordinate delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner is attempting to gain impetus from an order dated 16.3.2013 which is stated to be an order having been passed upon a mercy petition, having been preferred by the petitioner. Counsel has not referred to any provision under the Punjab Police Rules as regards filing of a mercy petition. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of preferring of an appeal as also revision and such remedies were availed of which ultimately led to the passing of the order dated 28.12.1998 at Annexure P-3 passed by the revisional authority. The order dated 16.3.2013 has been invited by the petitioner by preferring a mercy petition towards alleged exhaustion of a remedy not available under the statute.

In such matters, it would not be open for the employee to overcome delay by resorting to the remedy of filing a mercy petition which may have been considered and an order passed thereupon. Delay in such matters would have to be seen from the date of passing of the final order passed towards exhaustion of the statutory remedies available to an employee against an order of penalty passed by the punishing authority. In taking such view, I draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in case of Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 213, wherein it was held as under:-

It is undisputed that the punishing authority-respondent no. 5 passed the order of punishment on 18.5.2005 (P-3), which was challenged in appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 15.12.2005 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana-respondent no. 4 (P-5). Even the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 8.5.2006 (P-7). The instant petition has been filed on 17.7.2008 by claiming that subsequent mercy petition and representation (P-8 & P-10 respectively) filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 28.8.2007 (P-9) and 9.5.2008 (P-12). It is appropriate to mention that after availing all statutory remedies in the form of appeal and revision, no remedy of filing mercy petition or representation is available to the petitioner under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The petitioner has filed the mercy petition and representation inviting orders dated 28.8.2007 and 9.5.2008. It is, thus, apparent that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in challenging orders dated 18.5.2005 (P-3), 15.12.2005 (P-5) and 8.5.2006 (P-7). It is well settled that sending of representations repeatedly would not extend the period of limitation provided for challenging the orders passed by the Government. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . Therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

In view of the discussion herein above, the present writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. Petition dismissed.