IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.173 of 2007 RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O SRI BALDEO PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIRBIGHA P.O. BIHTA P.S. KHIJARSARAI DIST. GAYA. --- PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2. THE D.G. BORDER SECURITY FORCE, C.C.O COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE B.S.F.H.Q. SANTA NAGAR C/O 56 A.P.O. SRINAGAR. 4. THE COMMANDANT (SG) 109 BN B.S.F. KALYANI NADIA WEST BENGAL. 5. THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER ( D & C) D.G. OFFICE,B.S.F. C.C.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 22.05.2009 Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad for the appellant, is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner was a constable in the Boarder Security Force. He was served with a charge-sheet which is reproduced herein below for the facility of the quick reference: “1st Charge: - BSF ACT SEC-20(a) ASSULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER In that while he was on Quarter Guard duty at THQ Quarter Guard of this unit at 0800 Hrs on 20-1-93, boxed on the face of No. 71103033 HC Y N Chand the duty NCO in the Q.G. resulting injury and bleeding on the lower lip of the Head Constable. 2nd Charge:- BSF CAT SEC-40 AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE/ In that On 20-1-93 at 0500 hrs while he 2 was on quarter Guard duty in THQ Q.G, he took bath in the premises of Guard room verandah. 3rd Charge:- BSF ACT SEC-20(c) USING INSUBORDINATE LANGUAGE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER/ In that he, at 0745 Hrs on 20-1-93 used insubordinate language to No. 66400071 Sub Rattan Singh “Nahaya hoto kya hua jo karna hai to karo” or words to that effect.” After domestic enquiry, he was awarded the following punishment: “(a) To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and I direct that sentence of imprisonment shall be carried out by confinement in civil prison. (b) To be dismissed from the service.” Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had preferred the aforesaid C.W.J.C.No. 13756 of 2000, which was dismissed by order dated 24.11.2006, on the ground of delay. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant has approached this court after a lapse of five years. It suffers from negligence, laches, and acquiescence. The appeal is dismissed. Sym/ ( S.K.Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)