126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ISHWAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR Present Ms. Meghna Nehra, for the * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA CM-2459-LPA Application is filing certified copies of the documents mentioned therein. LPA-995-2025 (O&M) 1. The present Appeal assails order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP herein. 2. T order of dismissal dated 18.09.2003 by preferring a Writ Petition in the year 2025 before this Court inordinate delay in approaching this Court 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to point out that the delay in approaching the Court was account of the family circumstances. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ISHWAR SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) LPA-2025 Application is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing certified copies of the documents mentioned therein. 2025 (O&M) The present Appeal assails order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP-6155-2025 preferred by the Taking into consideration the fact that he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 18.09.2003 by preferring a Writ Petition in the year before this Court and no cogent reasons have come up for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to point out that the delay in approaching the Court was account of the family circumstances. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-995-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1st July, 2025 ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA the appellant is exempted from filing certified copies of the documents mentioned therein. The present Appeal assails order dated 05.03.2025 passed by 2025 preferred by the appellant aking into consideration the fact that he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 18.09.2003 by preferring a Writ Petition in the year and no cogent reasons have come up for the Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to point out that the delay in approaching the Court was not intentional and was on Suresh Kumar 2025.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-995-2025 (O&M) 4. We would have understood if the delay would have been reasonable say long 21 years in approaching this Court. 5. The ground for dismissal from service account of being absent from duty. We also notice that there were punishments also awarded to the mercy petition vide order dated 13.06.2017, he did not challenge it for a long time. Even thereafter, he did not approach the Court to challenge the orders. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran and Another should not be condoned merely as generosity and bonafides of explanation is necessary. for the inordinate delay Single Bench stands dismissed 7. All pending applications in this case accordingly. July 1, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) We would have understood if the delay would have been say 3 years of 4 years, but in the present case, the delay is 21 years in approaching this Court. The ground for dismissal from service account of being absent from duty. We also notice that there were punishments also awarded to the appellant. mercy petition vide order dated 13.06.2017, he did not challenge it for a long time. Even thereafter, he did not approach the Court to challenge the The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran and Another ; 2025 INSC 672, should not be condoned merely as generosity and bonafides of explanation is necessary. Therefore, we would not accept the reasons coming forward for the inordinate delay. The impugned judgmen Single Bench, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The Appeal dismissed accordingly. All pending applications in this case [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : We would have understood if the delay would have been 3 years of 4 years, but in the present case, the delay is of The ground for dismissal from service is misconduct on account of being absent from duty. We also notice that there were appellant. Despite the dismissal of his mercy petition vide order dated 13.06.2017, he did not challenge it for a long time. Even thereafter, he did not approach the Court to challenge the The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thirunagalingam Vs. ; 2025 INSC 672, has observed that delay should not be condoned merely as generosity and bonafides of explanation would not accept the reasons coming forward he impugned judgment passed by the learned therefore, does not warrant any interference. The Appeal All pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document