IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37692 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.RAJENDRAN, S/O. B. BASAPPAN, CONSTABLE (DISMISSED FOM SERVICE), COMMANDANT, 78 BATALIAN BSF MAHESHPUR WEST BENGAL, RESIDING AT PUTHANKATTIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKKAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT 690 555. BY ADV. SRI.T.NIKLAVU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE, 10 C.G.O COMPLEX, LDHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003. 2. THE COMMANDANT , B.HQ 78 BATTALION BOARDER, SECURITY FORCE, MAHESHPUR(WEST BENGAL) P.O, MIRUAL DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).NO.37692 OF 2008-K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner while working as Constable in the 78th Battalion of Border Security Force in West Bengal was proceeded against on certain charges namely (a) absenting from duty without leave (b) dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to the Government (c) making away the Government documents including A/roll for the month of March 2002 and other bills etc. 2. Ext.P1 charge sheet was served on the petitioner. He was tried by the Summary Security Force Court for offences punishable under Sections 19(a), 30(b) and 32(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. He was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and the Summary Security Force Court awarded a sentence of dismissal from service. 3. Consequently, respondent No.2 passed Ext.P2 order on July 25, 2002 by which petitioner was struck off the strength of the unit concerned. It is on record that the 2 WPC.NO.37692/08 petitioner had preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 order which was rejected by the authority concerned. 3. This Court in O.P.No.33751/2002 however found that the order of the appellate authority was a non-speaking order and therefore directed the authority to consider the appeal afresh. 4. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was informed by the appellate authority to appear for a hearing on June 1, 2004. According to the petitioner, though initially he requested for an adjournment, he nevertheless appeared before the appellate authority on the date of hearing. It is the contention of the petitioner that the authority informed him on that day that he would be reinstated in service immediately, but, nothing turned out thereafter, according to him. 5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition after a lapse of more than four and a half years praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order by which he was “struck off the rolls”. There is a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 to reconsider Ext.P3 appeal. He further prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to 3 WPC.NO.37692/08 reinstate him in service. 6. As indicated above, the petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on June 01, 2004. According to him, he had appeared before the appellate authority. Obviously, the appellate authority must have taken a decision in the matter. Petitioner has no case that such a decision was not taken. But, according to the petitioner, he was informed by the authority that he would be reinstated. 7. I am not prepared to accept the above contention. It may be noticed that petitioner has not stated anything about the order passed by the appellate authority, nor has he produced a copy of the order passed by the said authority. He wants this Court to believe that he had been expecting his order of reinstatement for the last more than 4 years as allegedly assured by the appellate authority orally. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner is living in penury after having lost his employment. He points out that petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 representation in May 2008 before respondent No.1. The ultimate prayer is to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the said representation. But I am not at all satisfied 4 WPC.NO.37692/08 that the above prayer can be accepted. This writ petition in my view is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition after a delay of four and a half years and that too with prayers which are wholly untenable. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl