1 2025:CGHC:41437-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 336 of 2025 Sadhelal Sande S/o Shri Tulasi Ram Sande Aged About 50 Years Then Posted As Sub-Inspector, As Incharge Kshetradhikari Vishesh Shakha Korba Now Posted As Inspector In Police Head Quartor Raipur R/o Village Parsahi Post Office Padariya P.S. Akaltara District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Director General of Police, Police Head Quartor, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sahayak Police Mahanirikshak (Karmik) Police Head Quartor, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police, District Korba (C.G.) 5. City Superintendent of Police Darri District Korba (C.G.) 6. Director Police Academy, Chhattisgarh, Mana- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.18 18:49:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2681 of 2017 (Sadhelal Sande vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition instituted by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was duly selected through the departmental examination for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police vide order dated 21.04.2004. However, despite such selection, he was not allowed to take up the post until 27.06.2009. The reason cited by the respondents was the pendency of departmental proceedings, which were in fact conducted twice on the same allegation. He further submits that the appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in May 2000 at Korba. In 2003, with due permission of the Police Headquarters, he appeared in the departmental examination for Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander and was declared successful vide order dated 24.01.2003. In compliance with the selection, he was 3 relieved from Korba on 13.03.2004 and reported for duty at Police Academy, Raipur on 15.03.2004. However, due to the Model Code of Conduct for the 2004 Lok Sabha Elections, he was not relieved to attend training at Sagar Police Academy. Thereafter, when the list of selected candidates was issued on 08.04.2004, his name was omitted on the ground that a departmental inquiry was pending. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the said inquiry was unnecessarily prolonged, but ultimately, by report dated 26.12.2003, the appellant was exonerated as the charges were not proved. Instead of granting the benefit of this exoneration, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, vide order dated 21.06.2004, cancelled the earlier proceedings and directed a fresh inquiry on the very same charge. Consequently, from 12.02.2005, a de novo inquiry was initiated, and by report dated 20.01.2006, the appellant was held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty on 01.07.2003. By order dated 24.01.2006, one increment was withheld for one year with cumulative effect. Counsel submits that even after the punishment order dated 24.01.2006, the appellant was not allowed to join his selected post for more than three years and five months, i.e., until 27.06.2009. Thereafter also, he was not paid arrears of salary for the inquiry period, nor was he granted seniority or other consequential service benefits, despite repeated representations dated 09.09.2015 and 02.01.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the action 4 of the respondents in denying him appointment, arrears, seniority, and consequential benefits is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unjustified. The same allegation could not have been made subject of two departmental inquiries. Having been exonerated in the first inquiry, the initiation of a second inquiry after more than one year and two months was impermissible in law. Even assuming the punishment imposed in the second inquiry, the appellant could not have been deprived of his appointment for such an extended period, nor denied consequential benefits thereafter. He further submits that the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge solely on the ground of delay and laches, without examining the merits of the case. The appellant respectfully submits that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity and deserves to be set aside, as the substantive rights of the appellant have been ignored and grave injustice has been caused to him. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge, upon a holistic consideration of the record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted that the appellant has approached the Court after a lapse of more than eight years. He further submits that the appellant was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector on 21.04.2004 and permitted to join service on 27.06.2009, but the writ petition was filed only on 18.05.2017, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. It is also contended that in paragraph 07 of the writ petition, the appellant has not explained the reasons for such delay. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly 5 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned order as well as the materials available on record. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that unexplained delay or laches is sufficient to decline relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply v. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, it was observed that if a person is indolent and allows things to happen, equity cannot come to his rescue. Similarly, in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 64, the Court reiterated that inordinate unexplained delay is a valid ground to dismiss a writ petition. 9. More recently, in Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa & Others, reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stale claims cannot be entertained unless covered by exceptional circumstances, such as a continuing wrong. 10. In the present case, the appellant was permitted to join as Sub- Inspector on 27.06.2009. The writ petition challenging denial of arrears, seniority and consequential benefits was instituted only on 18.05.2017, after more than eight years. The delay is not explained. On the contrary, in the writ petition, the appellant denied the fact of delay, which further undermines his case. The grievance relating to denial of benefits after 2009 does not constitute a continuing wrong so as to keep the cause of 6 action alive. The claim is thus stale. Entertaining such petitions after long lapse of time would unsettle settled service positions and cause prejudice to others. 11. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in declining to examine the matter on merits and dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan