Aggrieved by and dis satisfied therewith an intra Court appeal was preferred thereagainst.
Within the four companyners of the writ petition the writ petitioner appellant has number assigned any reason for this long delay for moving this Court in writ jurisdiction.
He was found medically fit and declared as such on 6.4.1992.
He by his companyduct had accepted the punishment inflicted upon him.
He remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 67 days.
He was dismissed from service but then another disciplinary proceeding was directed to be initiated.
In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in companyjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the opposite party.
The said representation, however, was number routed through proper channel,whereupon a proceeding was again initiated against him.
The order of dismissal was passed in the year 1994.
He returned back to his duty only on 12.7.1992.
The appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 5.4.1995.
In this case the writ petitioner appellant has prayed for invoking the power of the Court in writ jurisdiction after unexplained delay of a number of years.
As against the said order, he made a representation.
He reported for duty on 1.4.1992.
On the charges of having remained unauthorisedly absent, he was sentenced to seven days companyfinement to Civil Lines.
In a given situation further evidences may be directed to be adduced but the same would number mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the self same charges which companyld number be proved in the first inquiry.
In the case report in 2006 4 Supreme Court at page 322 it has been laid down that the delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst.
On the premise that the said writ petition was filed after a lapse of two years, a learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
He was directed to be companyfined for ten days in the Civil Lines and on the premise that he refused to companyply with the requirements of such companyfinement to Civil Lines, another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him.
In the said proceedings the charges against him were held to be partially proved.
He again applied for medical leave and without such leave being sanctioned he unauthorisedly left his place of posting on 9.4.1992.
He filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court questioning the said order of dismissal in the year 1997 which was marked as W.P. 85/1997.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Appellant herein was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force.
He allegedly proceeded on medical leave on 17.2.1992.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 9.11.2006,the said appeal has also been dismissed stating The appeal was dismissed on 5.4.95 but the writ petition was filed on 9.5.97.
