(2026:JHHC:2011) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No. 6730 of 2022 Manoj Kumar Ray, aged about 52 years, son of Kameshwar Ray, resident of village - Jamuaon, PO & PS - Bhojpur, District - Bhojpur (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block PO & PS - North Block, New Delhi, District - New Delhi. 2. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone Headquarter, Boring Road, PO & PS - Patliputra, District - Patna, (Bihar). 3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industry Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant, PO & PS - Bokaro Steel City, District - Bokaro. 4. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant, PO & PS - Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Mr. R. K. Gupta, CGC : Ms. Shivani Jalika, AC to ASGI --- 07/27th January 2026 1. An order must attain finality. There has to be a quietus to a proceeding. 2. A person who is aggrieved by the order cannot be allowed to challenge the same whenever he wishes so. A person who sleeps over his right cannot be allowed to challenge the same, any fine morning when he wakes up from his deep slumber. 3. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has been dismissed from service after a proper disciplinary enquiry on 30th July 2002. The (2026:JHHC:2011) 2 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which the petitioner had replied and thereafter, a departmental proceeding was concluded and finally he was dismissed by considering the gravity of the charges. 4. After the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 21st November 2002. The petitioner also preferred a revision which was also dismissed on 12th June 2003. Thereafter the petitioner slept and slept too long a period only to wake-up in the year 2022 to file this writ petition challenging his order of dismissal. Even if the order is of dismissal, but this Court cannot allows a person who sleeps for 20 years to wake-up and challenge the same. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley & Others reported in (2024) 15 SCC 551 at Paragraph No. 9 has held as under:- 9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 5. Thus, in view of the judgment cited above and the serious delay and latches on part of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain (2026:JHHC:2011) 3 entertain this writ petition exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi Dated: - 27th January 2026 Uploaded on:- 03.02.2026