[2025:RJ-JP:47876] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 252/2025 Surendra Singh Bhadoria Son Of Late Shri Dhanpal Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Panch Mujhi Balalji Ke Pass, Bus Stand Road, Jhalawar- 326001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Rajasthan Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, CAD Colony, Dadabari, Kota. 4. Supterintendent Of Police, District Jhalawar, Jhalawar. 5. Additional Superintendent of Police, District Jhalawar. Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma and Ms. Devkriti Vashistha both for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- “i. quash and set aside the memorandum dated 17.03.2006; quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 06.11.2006; Ⅲ. quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 06.02.2007, 09.07.2009 and 10.01.2012; iv. as a consequential relief, direct the respondents to pay the balance salary and/or other allowances to the petitioner, as per the pay scale prior to [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (2 of 7) [CW-252/2025] 06.02.2007 and subsequent increments and also grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner as per the pay scale prior to 06.02.2007 and subsequent increments to which the petitioner was originally entitled; v. any other order, relief or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, if deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1978, thereafter, in 1991 he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and later, he remained as Establishment In-charge in the Office of Superintendent of Police, District Jhalwar. He further submits that in year 2006, an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter referred as ‘the CCA Rules’) was proposed and without considering the defence of the petitioner, the petitioner was found guilty in three charges and was demoted from the post of UDC to LDC, for a period of one year but after one year he was reverted back to the post of UDC. He further submits that the petitioner has availed statutory remedy of appeal but same was rejected without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. He also submits that aggrieved petitioner has approached Hon’ble Governor for review but same was dismissed on 10.01.2012. Learned counsel has further submits that the inquiry initiated against the petitioner was arbitrary, unjust, without opportunity of hearing and without following principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner was punished. He also submits that now he has filed this writ petition to set aside the memo dated 17.03.2006/charge- sheet dated 06.11.2006 and also the orders dated 06.02.2007, 09.07.2009 and 10.01.2012. [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (3 of 7) [CW-252/2025] 3. Learned counsel has also submits that the petitioner was not aware about the impact of the inquiry as the petitioner was retired on 30.07.2010 by IGP, Jaipur (HQ) in light of punishment record. He also submits that otherwise the petitioner was entitled to be superannuated in year 2017 thus the respondents have reduced the service of petitioner by seven years. He further submits that no statutory limitation is prescribed for filing of writ petition but still the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he is not having any other statutory remedy after dismissal of review by Hon’ble Governor on 10.01.2012. At last, he placed reliance upon judgment in cases of Ramchandra Shankar Vs. State of Maharshtra and Ors. : (1974) 1 SCC 317 and Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648 and submits that there is no limitation prescribed in filing writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the case of petitioner is squarely covered by principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has also placed reliance upon judgment in case of LRs of Triochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 6330 and submits that from the facts of the case, the writ petition is maintainable. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. He submits that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2024 whereas the cause of action as claimed by the petitioner was of 10.01.2012. He also submits that the writ petition itself indicate that the petitioner has challenged inquiry memo and charge-sheet and same cannot be [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (4 of 7) [CW-252/2025] assailed before a writ Court. He also submits that the orders were passed 12-13 years before the filing of the writ petition but no action was initiated by the petitioner. He also submits that in the meanwhile, this petitioner was compulsorily retired by order dated 30.07.2010 (Annexure 20) under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’). He also submits that the petitioner has not challenged the compulsory retirement order dated 30.07.2010, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Also perused the material placed on record along with judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. At this stage, we are only considering delay in filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are reproducing the timeline of the matter as submitted by the petitioner, which read as under:- S. No. DATE PARTICULARS 1. 1978 Petitioner appointed to the post of LDC through RPSC. 2. 1991 Petitioner promoted to UDC - incharge of Force Establishment at SP Office, Jhalawar. 3. 17.03.2006 Memorandum of charges issued by SP, Jhalawar proposing inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules (Procedure for imposing major penalties) 4. 25.05.2006 Petitioner submitted his reply wherein he stated that he was assigned several other tasks during the very same timeline. 5. 24.06.2006 IGP, Kota Range appointed Addl. SP as the Inquiry Officer. 6. During the investigation, statements were recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 7. 28.10.2006 Petitioner submitted another reply before the Inquiry Officer stating that he had in fact moved communication on 20.08.2004 in compliance of the orders 8. 06.11.2006 Charge Sheet prepared by the Inquiry officer. 9. 21.11.2006 Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner 10. 23.12.2006 Reply submitted by the petitioner to the SCN. 11. 06.02.2007 Vide this order, the petitioner was illegally given two penalties for a single alleged offence, one major (Clause 14 iv) and one minor penalty (Clause 14 ii). 12. 15.05.2007 Demotion order in furtherance of the order dated 06.02.2007 13. 07.02.2008 Reinstatement of petitioner to the post of UDC. 14. 09.07.2009 Appeal u/R 23 of CCA Rules before the DGP filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.02.2007 dismissed. 15. 23.09.2009 and 10.01.2012 Review petition filed before the Hon'ble Governor against the order dated 09.07.2009 dismissed. 16. 30.07.2010 The petitioner retired by IGP, Jaipur (HQ) in light of the punishments on the record of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (5 of 7) [CW-252/2025] 7. The petitioner has challenged punishment order dated 15.05.2007 before the Appellate Authority (DGP) under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules and after dismissal of appeal, he has filed a review petition before the Hon’ble Governor, which was dismissed on 10.01.2012. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was retired by invoking Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. 8. In case of Ramchandra Shankar Vs. State of Maharshtra and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the grounds of laches or delay when a writ petition can be refused and we have considered the principle. Similarly, in case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered difference between continuing or recurring or successive wrong. It was held that service matter claims normally are rejected either on limitation where limitation is prescribed or on the ground of delay and laches, where there is no limitation. But exception to this principle is a case of continuing wrong which can be entertained despite delay. In case of LRs of Triochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), it was held that it is a case of continuing wrong and the writ petition is maintainable, filed even after delay. 9. Here in this case, the petitioner was retired from service by invoking a Rule 53(1) under the Rules of 1996 on 30.07.2010 but same is not challenged. The compulsory retirement has resulted into pre-mature superannuation. After the compulsory retirement this writ petition is filed in December, 2024 which means there is a delay of more than 14 years. Similarly, the review was dismissed on 10.01.2012 and writ petition is filed after almost 13 years. [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (6 of 7) [CW-252/2025] 10. The petitioner is appointed on post of LDC and later promoted to the post of UDC and become In-charge of Establishment in the Office of Superintendent of Police, which means he is well aware about the procedure of establishment and Rules. There is no ground to consider that the petitioner was prevented from year 2012 to 2024 in filing the writ petition. 11. The law does not fix statutory time limit for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but it must be filed within a reasonable time. Herein, the delay of 12 to 14 years is a substantial delay and it is not a case of continuing wrong rather after retirement of petitioner on 30.07.2010, the retiral benefits of petitioner were already settled. If the petitioner want to challenge the order(s) then he should have challenged the orders before attaining the age of 60 years i.e. before 2017 but he has not challenged which clearly indicate that the petitioner has made deliberate delay in filing the writ petition. 12. It is well recognized principle of law that delay defeats equity, so undue delay without justification can dis-entitle the petitioner from relief. The Court has discretionary power to refuse relief, if the petitioner approaches the Court after an unreasonable delay even if a fundamental or legal right has been violated. There is no pleading about fraud or misrepresentation or any plausible ground so as to consider the writ petition only on the grounds mentioned by the petitioner. 13. Herein, there is a substantial delay of 12 to 14 years and delay in instant matter requires explanation but there is no explanation submitted by the petitioner. The delay is sufficient to cause prejudice such as loss or unavailability of record thus [2025:RJ-JP:47876] (7 of 7) [CW-252/2025] judgments as referred by the petitioner are not applicable in present case to consider the writ petition on merits. 14. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 15. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/35