2025:JHHC:30967 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4644 of 2021 ------ Gopal Ram, son of late Daroga Ram, resident of village Kulmanpur, P.O Shivpur, P.S. Nawanagar, District- Buxar (Bihar) … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, office at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police office at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police office at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, office at P.O and P.S and District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV ------ 11/07.10.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.3.2003 as contained in Memo No. 540 whereby, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement. He further challenged the appellate order dated 11.9.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was inflicted punishment on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent. Earlier also in his tenure of 30 years of service, six times he was absent unauthorizedly and absconded twice. 3. Be it noted that the petitioner was a constable in police force, which is a disciplined force. Further earlier he was inflicted three minor punishment and two major punishment, thus the punishment of compulsory retirement was passed, considering his misconduct. 4. The punishment order is of the year 2003. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed in the year 2004. The petitioner in the year 2021 i.e. after 17 years has approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order. The reason of delay, according to him is that he was suffering from some mental ailments. He has produced some documents i.e. prescriptions of doctors, which are at page Nos. 17 to 20 of the writ petition. 5. Page No. 17 of the writ petition is a cover which does not mention that the petitioner was indoor patient or outdoor patient. Page No. 2. 18 is a prescription dated 21.9.2003 which notes that the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder but there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was either admitted in hospital or not. Same is the position at page No. 19 which is of dated 11.2.2004 in which some medicines only have been prescribed. The next and last document is of dated 16.5.2021, which is a certificate of one P. Kumar, who certified that the petitioner was under his treatment from 21.9.2003. There is nothing in the certificate which would suggest that at any point of time, the petitioner was admitted in mental hospital. Further there is no document between 2004 to 2021. Thus, these documents absolutely do not inspire any confidence. 6. The fact remains that after more than 17 years, the punishment order has been challenged before this Court. The petitioner has slept for more than 17 years. There is abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking relief. Thus he is not entitled to get any relief, as sought for in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 07th October, 2025 Anu/- (ANANDA SEN, J.)