High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Final Order No. P.Vlll-11198-12-BC-2, dated 20-04- 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 confirmed by the appellate authority vide order No. R.Xlll-12199-Estt.3, dated 23-07-1999 as iilegal, arbitrary and u nco nstitutiona I and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLIC|TOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3O3OO of 2OlV ORDER: The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable in the year 199 t; and while serving in the 3',1 respondent-CRPF Batta-lion, he received a phone call that his father was kidnapped, and that his sister was seriously ill, and he applied for 5 days leave, inilially, and later requested for extension of leave. Further, as the petitioner too fell ill, he could not report back to duty. On the ground that he was on unauthorised absence for 78 days, he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service by Order daled 20.04.1999 His appeal before the l"t respondent was rejected by order dated

23.07 .1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

2. Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, made submissions on the lines of writ afhdavit, anrl contends that the impugned order of removal from sewice, and rej,ccl-ion of appeal by the 1"t respondent are illegal and liable to be set:rside I 7

3. Learned Depury Solicitor General of India' based on the counter afhdavit, contends that the petitioner applied for frve days casual leave in April 1998 due to his sister's illness' and his request for further leave was refused due to the batta-lion's impending movement to Manipur and service exigency; and despite refusal, the petitioner left the unit ofl 27 'O4 '1998 without permission and remained absent for 78 days' An FIR was lodged and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner' A Court of Inquiry was also initiated to declare him unauthorised absentee' Subsequently, the petitioner reported back to the duty voluntarily' whereupon the warrant and inquiry proceedings were cancelled' and a Departmental enquiry was conducted' during which the petitioner submitted certain medical certifrcates' and the charges of unauthorized absence were proved, and therefore the petitioner was removed from service by order dated Order dated 20'04' 1999' and his appeal a.lso was rejected by order d'ated 23 'O7 ' 1999' It is further contended that there is a delay of 18 years in frling the writ petition, and there is no adequate explalation for the delay' and therefore the writ petition is liable for dismissal' ( I 3

4. Having considered the respective submissions ald perused the record, at the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned Order of removal from service was passed on 20.04.1999, and the appeal against the removal order was rejected on 23.07 1999. This writ petition is frled in the year 2077. There is a del,:ry of almost 18 years in approaching this C<iurt, and there is no plzrusible explanation for the occurrence of such an inordinale <lelay.

5. At this juncture, it is..relevant to refer the .lu<lgment of the Hon'lcle Division Bench gf this Court in W.A.Nos. 1(160 of 20 1B and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, wherein the writ appeals filed by the Road Transport Corporation were allowed on tho ground that the respondent therein (employee) approached the Court with a delay of 18 years from the date of impugned punishment. In the said writ appeals, the Hon'ble Division, by referring to Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1991 Supp(11 SCC 5O4), observed I \ as follows: nThe delag of 5 to 78 gears uas held to be inordinate d.elag in preferring a urit petition under Article 226 oJ the Constitution of India.' \ t 4 In the instalt case, in view of the inordinate delay of 18 years -i

6. in agitating the grievance against the impugned proceedings, the writ petition is liable for dismissal on this sole ground alone; and therefore this Court does not deem it relevant to refer to the merits of the matter. 7 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed; however, considering that the petitioher had served the respondent organization for about 9 years prior to his removal from service, the terminal/ service benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner as per the Rules applicable, shall be processed arrd paid to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT FFICER I To, I '1 . The Deputy lnspector General' Central Reserv-e Police Force, Chandrhyangutia, Union of lndia, Hyderabad-s.

2. The Commandant '12 Bn, CRPF, Kanchup, lmphal, Manipur-795 1 13' 3. One CC to SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 4. one cc to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia IoPUC] 5 KKS GJP Two CD Copies Qr \ HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 -.a - -1",aAa - ) 4 ,.^ i,c 0 0 sEP 2025 o,( :,\ . :l .l .// '/ J. .! t ,,) l SIr.,l .,rii o-- \--'---- ORDER WP.No.30300 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS [- f7 lrL