IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8664 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 11, 2008 Ex. Constable Jaspal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 14.1.1994 (P-2), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur-respondent No. 5 dismissing the petitioner from service on account of absence from duty. He has also challenged order dated 25.9.1994 (P-3), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar-respondent No. 4 as well as order dated 1.3.1996 (P-4), passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2, upholding the orders of dismissal passed by respondent No. 5. All the statutory remedies were exhausted on the dismissal of revision petition on 1.3.1996 (P-4). However, the petitioner filed a mercy petition against the aforementioned orders but the same has been dismissed as not C.W.P. No. 8664 of 2008 maintainable on 20.3.2007 (P-5) by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 3. 2. After hearing learned counsel we are of the considered view that the substantive cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 1996 and he accepted the order. After 11 years, he filed a mercy appeal before respondent No. 3, which has been held to be not maintainable. The Inspector General of Police notices in his order all the orders passed earlier, in the body of the order, which reads thus:- “ As per available record in appeal submitted by Ex. Const. Jaspal Singh, 677/GSP, the appellant to Gurdaspur Range, Amritsar has already been rejected vide order dated 19.9.1994. A Revision petition submitted by him to DGP-Punjab was rejected vide order 22.03.1996. A representation dated 27.04.1998 to DGP- Punjab was also considered and filed on 08.07.1999. Similarly another Revision petition dated 20.01.2000 to DGP Punjab was also filed on 31.08.2000. His two different Mercy Petitions dated 23.04.2002 and 14.03.2003 have also been considered and filed by DGP- Punjab vide order dated 10.01.2003 and 31.03.2003 respectively. Moreover, and (an?) appeal submitted by him to the Department of Home Affairs & Justice Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh has also been rejected vide order dated 18.10.2004. 2 C.W.P. No. 8664 of 2008 In view of above, his present Mercy Appeal does not lie to this office. Hence, the same is rejected and filed. The appellant may be informed accordingly.” 3. There is no explanation for inordinate delay in challenging orders dated 14.1.1994 (P-2), 25.9.1994 (P-3) and 1.3.1996 (P-4). No fresh lease of limitation could be infused by virtue of passing of order dated 20.3.2007 (P-5). It is well settled that the maximum period provided for filing a suit can also be read into filing of writ petition, as has been held in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 11, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3