Khamman Singh Bhatre vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ignoring the defaults pointed out by the Registry in the instant case, the matter was heard finally at admission stage itself with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by Petitioner assailing the Order dated 3.2.2017 whereby the services of Petitioner have been terminated on account of his misconduct for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty for a considerable long period.

The present Writ Petition has been filed on 7.10.2021, that is after a period of more than three and half years from the date of termination.

Perusal of record would show that the Petitioner has not preferred any departmental appeal nor has he preferred any mercy appeal before any of the higher Authority of the Department till now.

This non-availing of departmental remedies available to Petitioner for a period of three and half years, forces this Court to reach to a conclusion that the Petitioner was not aggrieved of the order of termination till now and he had accepted the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

Now, after a period of more than three and half years, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition directly before this Court without further availing the departmental remedies that were available to him.

The fact that the Petitioner has not availed the departmental remedies and has now tried to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, in of the opinion of this Court the present Writ Petition at this juncture suffers from delay and latches and it would not be proper for this Court to entertain the Writ Petition at this belated stage.

So far as delay and laches are concerned, the law in this regard is by now well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question of delay and laches came to be considered recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others" [2013 (12) SCC 179] in which the Supreme Court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of the Court with inordinate delay, and held as under :

"In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: -

"...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."

Likewise, in the case of "Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. & Another Vs. Jabar Singh & Others" [2007 (2) SCC 112], it was observed as under:

"43 . The termination order was made in the year 1995 and the writ petitions were admittedly filed in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 years. The High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in entertaining the writ petition on the ground that the petition has been filed after a delay of 10 years and that the writ petitions should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of laches."

Further, in the case of "New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Others" [2007 (9) SCC 278], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to interference in cases where the petitioner approached the Court with unexplained delay, held as under:

"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan.)"

In the case of "P. S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" [1975 (1) SCC 152], it has been held as under:-

"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. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."

Very recently in the matter of "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu" [2014 (4) SCC 108], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, and expressed their opinion as under :

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay doesbring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any strong case made out by Petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned Order and the present Writ Petition therefore deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches alone.

However, the reluctance of this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition would not preclude the Petitioner for availing the departmental remedies available to him under the Services Rules governing the field and also for preferring a mercy appeal to the Head of the Department by ventilating his grievances.

Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.