2025:JHHC:15149-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2511 of 2025 ----- 1. Sundari Devi, W/o Late Upendar Singh @ Upendra Singh, resident of Vistipara, Hirapur, Dhanbad, presently resident of Hullas Vihar, Phase-2, New Harnichak, P.O. & P.S. Anisabad, District Patna (Bihar). 2. Susmita Singh, D/o Late Upendar Singh @ Upendra Singh and W/o Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Hullas Vihar, Phase-2, New Harnichak, P.O. & P.S. Anisabad, District Patna (Bihar). ..........Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. 3. The Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad. ........... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Atul Vivek, A.C. to Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha For the Respondents: Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V ----- Reserved on 09.06.2025 Pronounced On 12.06.2025 Per: Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Departmental Proceeding No.1/2013, whereby the deceased employee, namely, Upendar Singh @ Upendra Singh (husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioner no.2) had been dismissed from service with effect from the forenoon of 31.3.2014. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant the petitioners all the retiral benefits of the deceased employee treating him as retired on 31.3.2014. 2025:JHHC:15149-DB 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are surviving heirs of the deceased employee Late Upendra Singh who died on 25.9.2021 in Patna (Bihar). It is further submitted that the said deceased employee was initially employed as Temporary Process Server at Nazarat, Civil Court, Dhanbad being a substantive post and his date of appointment was 02.08.1982. His service was confirmed with effect from 01.08.1985. 3. It is further submitted that one Sri Nagin Kant had made a written complaint to the District Judge, Civil Court, Dhanbad stating that the deceased employee, who was posted as peon, Civil Court, Dhanbad, had taken a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from him in the name of providing him employment as court peon. The deceased employee was issued a show cause notice dated 15.3.2012 which was replied by him on 22.3.2012, however, he was put under suspension vide office order no.139/2013 dated 03.05.2013. 4. Subsequently, Departmental Proceeding No.01/2013 was initiated against him and the enquiry officer submitted his report finding the charge of violation of Rule 22 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 as proved. The deceased employee was served with a second show cause notice proposing major punishment and thereafter the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in exercise of power conferred under rule 2(viii) of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 passed the order dated 31.03.2014 dismissing him from service with effect from forenoon of 2025:JHHC:15149-DB 3 31.03.2014 as well as disentitling him from getting any payment other than the subsistence allowance. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the order of dismissal of the deceased employee was passed in due compliance of the principle of natural justice which needs no interference by this court. It is further submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the deceased employee did not challenge the order of dismissal till his death and the petitioners have challenged the said order after more than 10 years. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioners have challenged the order of dismissal of the deceased employee claiming that the departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice. They have further claimed that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon the deceased employee in violation of the legal framework applicable in service jurisprudence that too vide non- speaking and unreasoned order suffering from the vice of non- application of mind. 8. The deceased employee was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.03.2014 and he did not choose to challenge the said order till his death i.e. 25.09.2021. The petitioners have challenged the said order of dismissal after more than 10 years without explaining any reason for such a huge delay in filing the writ petition. 2025:JHHC:15149-DB 4 9. In the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10. In the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that delay and laches are the factors which require to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances. Filing of representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay. 11. It is well settled that delay and laches are the factors to decline exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights. 2025:JHHC:15149-DB 5 12. In the case in hand, due to own negligence of the petitioners/deceased employee, the writ petition has been filed after more than 10 years of dismissal from service. The petitioners have failed to provide any cogent reason for committing such a huge delay of more than a decade. Resultantly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/NAFR