IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.333 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Ex L/Naik (GD) Diwan Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Union of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred against dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay. 3. The appellant was employed as Guard Commander. He had joined service as Constable with the Indo Tibetan Border Police force. On 31.3.1997, he was found in drunken condition while on duty. A chargesheet was given to him, alleging his being in drunken condition on duty and failing to have effective command over the guard personnel and also having failed to prevent the guard personnel on duty from taking liquor. After trial LPA No.333 of 2009 before the Summary Force Court, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on him on 22.4.1997. Statutory appeal was dismissed against the said order on 20.8.1997 and thereafter, his statutory petition was dismissed by the competent authority on 7.12.1998. He filed a writ petition in this Court, on which, a direction to consider his representation was issued. Thereafter, order dated 7.6.2002 was passed, holding that the appellant not only exhibited dereliction in performing his duties but also consumed liquor and failed to exercise his best judgment. A shoot out incident took place and an ITBP Constable died on duty. Thereafter, the petition, giving rise to this appeal, was filed after more than seven years on 12.2.2009. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there is no explanation for delay of seven years, the delay was not malafide and taking a liberal view, the same may be condoned. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishanan v. M. Krishanamurthy 1998(7) SCC 123, Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands v. Munna Barrick and others 2005(2) SCC 237 and Ram Krishan and another v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and another 1994 Supp (2) SCC 507. Sher Singh, who was similarly placed, has been given benefit on the question of punishment. 2 LPA No.333 of 2009 6. We do not find any merit in the submission made. 7. In absence of any explanation for the delay, the petition filed after seven years could not be entertained. The appellant was dismissed from service after following due procedure and after direction of this Court, a speaking order has also been passed. Negligence of the appellant led to causing of one death. His case was not at par with the case of Sher Singh. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India 2007(8) SCC 274, para 7, principle that doctrine of laches is not a technical doctrine has been reiterated. The Court does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent. In case of inordinate unexplained delay, the Court may decline relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 04, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3