IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14192 of 2005 DHIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. B K Mishra For the Union of India: Mr. Saravadeo Singh ------- 03. 25.07.2008 Petitioner was a constable working under the Central Reserved Police Force which is a para military organization and comes within the category of a disciplined force. Way back in the year 1995 to be precise on 3.4.1995, while being posted at Tinsukia, he was given the responsibility of delivering certain important documents relating to a C.B.I. inquiry at New Delhi. Petitioner did deliver the Dak and the documents but thereafter went missing. In terms of this assignment he was to report back at Tinsukia on 8.5.1995 but he did not do so. He was missing from duty without authorization and information till he finally decided to surrender before the authorities on 14.9.1995. Such conduct of the petitioner was treated as an offence punishable under section 10 (M) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949. On due enquiry and evidence petitioner was found guilty. He explained his absence by stating that he had informed the authorities by a registered post but he could not substantiate the said statement but absence without information was not disputed and could not be disputed. The authority under the Act therefore vide order dated 25.9.1995 imposed the punishment of imprisonment for 15 days. Based on the punishment order on the departmental side an office order dated 28.9.1995 came to be passed. The said order is contained - 2 - in annexure-2 to the writ application. Petitioner has been dismissed from service as a measure of punishment in consequence to order passed in annexure-1. After the dismissal of the petitioner from the force in the year 1995 there seems to be silence on his part for almost 8 years. He in his wisdom decided to approach Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal by way of writ application. From the number of the writ application it seems that this exercise has been done in sometime 2003. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner waited for 8 years to approach the Court and that too a wrong forum where no cause of action had arisen. But then the Allahabad High Court in its magnanimity allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with a direction upon the respondents to entertain the same. This Court is surprised to see that the order does not even indicate as to how the writ application was entertained at Allahabad and why magnanimity of indulgence of filing an appeal after 8 years was allowed. Be that as it may, petitioner emboldened by the order contained in annexure-3 filed an appeal before the respondent CRPF. The appeal dated 12.5.2005 has been rejected. This order has been brought on record as annexure-4 by the petitioner. This is the cause of action for filing the present writ application. The reason assigned for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal came to be passed against him on 29.9.1995 and petitioner had approached the appellate authority on 31.3.2005. In the opinion of this Court, if the respondents dismissed - 3 - the appeal on the ground of laches and delay of more than 10 years they have done the correct thing. With the facts writ large on the face of record which has been taken note of in the earlier part of this order, it is a case which requires no indulgence or interference at all. The negligence, the laches and the delay committed on the part of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief. The writ application is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)