1 2026:CGHC:8007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 415 of 2022 Amar Deep S/o Suresh Chandra Aged About 38 Years R/o Cisf Unit, Kgps Bandipora, Nhpc Campus, Village - Karalpora, Post Office Bandipora, District Bandipora, State - Jammu Kashmir., Jammu And Kashmir. Present Posting Cisf, 12th Rb, Anantpura, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Director General, Central Industrial Security, Force At C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2 - Inspector General, Cisf West Sector Headquarters, Navi Mumbai, District Mumbai, Maharashtra. 3 - Deputy Inspector General, Cisf Central Zone Headquarters, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant, Cisf 1st Reserve Battalion, Barwaha, District Khargone (M.P.). 5 - S.P. Khilare, Deputy Commandant, Cisf Unit, Asg, Mumbai., District Mumbai, Maharashtra. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.18 17:46:14 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Central Government Counsel Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/02/2026 1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2016 assailing the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4423 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant, who was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), had questioned the legality and validity of the orders dated 23.03.2017, 27.07.2017 and 18.12.2017 passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities respectively, imposing upon him the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition without adjudication on merits, the appellant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the appeal 3 are that, the appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and thereafter, upon qualifying through the Staff Selection Commission in the year 2011, was promoted and appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector. During the relevant period, he was posted at the CISF Unit, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Subsequently, he was transferred to various places including Barwaha (Madhya Pradesh), Seepat (Chhattisgarh), Bandipora (Jammu & Kashmir) and is presently posted at Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ******* On 01.05.2016, while the appellant was discharging his duties in the morning shift at the AC Plant Duty Post at the Mumbai Airport Unit, five AC machines were installed at the duty point from which hot air was blowing and harmful gases were allegedly being emitted. Owing to the uncomfortable and unhealthy working conditions, the appellant shifted his chair approximately one foot towards the ventilation area. At that time, Respondent No. 5, namely S.P. Khilare, Deputy Commandant, allegedly visited the duty post and, without any provocation, slapped the appellant, resulting in internal injury and bleeding from the ear, which adversely affected his hearing capacity. The appellant asserts that the entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage installed at the premises. ******* The appellant thereafter sought medical treatment and submitted several complaints to his superior authorities against Respondent No. 5 alleging manhandling and misconduct. However, according to the appellant, no action was initiated against the said 4 officer. Instead, he was allegedly subjected to humiliation and harassment for raising the grievance. It is the appellant’s case that with mala fide intent to shield Respondent No. 5 and to victimise him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. ******* A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant levelling five charges, inter alia, that (i) he was found sleeping on duty without headgear during inspection; (ii) he failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedure; (iii) he addressed complaints directly to higher headquarters bypassing the proper channel; (iv) he made unwarranted allegations against departmental officers and forwarded complaints to constitutional authorities such as the President, Prime Minister and Human Rights Commission; and (v) he lodged a criminal complaint before the local police against departmental officials in violation of the Rules. ******* Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 23.03.2017, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected on 27.07.2017. Thereafter, a revision petition was also filed, which came to be dismissed on 18.12.2017 affirming the punishment. ******* It is further the case of the appellant that earlier departmental proceedings had already been initiated under Rule 37 of the CISF 5 Rules, 2001 on the same set of facts and that he had been punished therein, and therefore initiation of fresh proceedings under Rule 36 amounted to double jeopardy. He also contends that the CCTV footage showing the alleged manhandling by Respondent No. 5 was not properly considered during the enquiry. ******* The appellant had earlier approached the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 712/2017 seeking action against Respondent No. 5; however, the same was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Special Leave Petition filed thereafter before the Supreme Court of India was disposed of with liberty to make a representation before the competent authority. In compliance thereof, the appellant submitted representations, which were ultimately rejected on 14.08.2019. ******* The appellant further asserts that during the span of approximately four years, he was transferred thrice, allegedly with mala fide intention, and was even compelled to undergo psychiatric evaluation, which according to him amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ******* Being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities dated 23.03.2017, 27.07.2017 and 18.12.2017 respectively, the appellant preferred W.P.(S) No. 4423 of 2020 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 23.11.2020, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches without entering into the merits of the disciplinary 6 proceedings. ******* Challenging the said order of dismissal, the present writ appeal has been filed contending that the delay stood sufficiently explained on account of bona fide prosecution of remedies before other fora and representations pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court, and that substantial questions relating to legality of the disciplinary proceedings and violation of constitutional rights require adjudication on merits. 3. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches without adjudicating the matter on merits, particularly when the impugned disciplinary action entails civil consequences affecting the appellant’s service career and financial benefits. It is contended that the delay, if any, stood sufficiently explained and the writ petition ought not to have been non-suited at the threshold. ******* It is argued that the appellant was diligently prosecuting his remedies before appropriate fora. Immediately after the incident dated 01.05.2016, wherein he was allegedly manhandled by Respondent No. 5 at the CISF Unit, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, he approached the competent authorities and subsequently invoked jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 712/2017 seeking appropriate action. Upon dismissal of the said petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the 7 appellant preferred Special Leave Petition No. 34577/2017 before the Supreme Court of India, which was disposed of granting liberty to submit representation before the competent authority. In compliance thereof, the appellant submitted representations which ultimately came to be rejected on 14.08.2019. Therefore, the appellant cannot be said to have been indolent or negligent in pursuing his remedies. ******* Learned counsel would further submit that the cause of action was recurring in nature, inasmuch as the punishment imposed vide order dated 23.03.2017 was reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect, thereby permanently affecting the appellant’s pay scale and future increments. The financial repercussions continued even beyond the stipulated two- year period. Hence, the writ petition could not have been dismissed mechanically on the ground of limitation, particularly when substantial injustice is alleged. ******* On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay be set aside, the delay be condoned in the interest of justice, and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge for adjudication on merits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 (Union of India and departmental authorities of the CISF) would submit at the outset that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that the learned Single Judge 8 has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, and no interference is warranted in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. ******* It is submitted that the disciplinary order was passed on 23.03.2017, the departmental appeal was rejected on 27.07.2017 and the revision petition was dismissed on 18.12.2017. Despite exhausting the entire statutory departmental remedy, the appellant did not challenge the said orders before any competent court within a reasonable time. The writ petition came to be filed only on 30.09.2020, i.e., after almost three years from the date of rejection of the revision petition. Such unexplained and inordinate delay disentitles the appellant from invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. ******* Learned counsel would contend that the appellant’s reliance upon proceedings before the Delhi High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court of India is wholly misconceived. The writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court did not challenge the punishment order dated 23.03.2017 or the appellate/revisional orders. Rather, it sought action against Respondent No. 5 in relation to the alleged incident dated 01.05.2016. Even the Special Leave Petition did not pertain to the disciplinary penalty imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, prosecution of those proceedings cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant for condonation of delay in challenging the disciplinary orders. ******* It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the 9 appellant pursuant to liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also not directed against the punishment order but was confined to seeking action against a superior officer. The rejection of such representation on 14.08.2019 does not revive or extend limitation in respect of the disciplinary proceedings which had already attained finality in December, 2017.**** ******* Learned counsel would finally submit that the learned Single Judge has applied settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on delay and laches in service matters and has exercised discretion judiciously. The appellant, having slept over his rights for nearly three years, cannot seek indulgence of this Court in equity jurisdiction. ******* On these grounds, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 prays that the writ appeal be dismissed and the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge be affirmed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 4423 of 2020 solely on the ground of delay and laches without examining the matter on merits. 7. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary order was passed on 23.03.2017, the appeal was rejected on 27.07.2017 and the revision petition was dismissed on 18.12.2017. The writ petition came to be 10 filed on 30.09.2020. Thus, there is apparent delay in approaching the writ court. However, the record also reveals that the appellant had, in the interregnum, approached the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 712/2017 and thereafter carried the matter to the Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition No. 34577/2017. Though those proceedings were not directed specifically against the punishment order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to submit representation before the competent authority. The appellant, in compliance thereof, submitted representation which was decided only on 14.08.2019. The writ petition before this Court was filed within a reasonable period thereafter. 8. The explanation offered by the appellant for the delay cannot be said to be wholly implausible or mala fide. It is evident that the appellant was pursuing remedies, though perhaps not in the most appropriate forum. In matters involving service jurisprudence, particularly where civil consequences affecting pay, increments and future prospects are involved, the Court is required to adopt a justice-oriented approach rather than a hyper-technical one. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. It was observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 11 10. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 the Apex Court held that length of delay is not decisive; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics. 11. In the present case, the punishment imposed upon the appellant is reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect, which has a bearing on his future increments and retiral benefits. Thus, the consequences are not confined to a closed past transaction but have enduring impact. In such circumstances, dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, without testing the legality of the disciplinary proceedings on merits, in our considered opinion, may result in failure of justice. 12. This Court is conscious that the doctrine of delay and laches serves an important purpose and cannot be lightly brushed aside. However, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable in nature. The facts of the present case, particularly the pursuit of remedies before constitutional courts and the continuing civil consequences of the penalty, persuade us to adopt a balanced approach. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge ought to have examined the writ petition on merits instead of dismissing the same solely on the ground of delay. The impugned order dated 23.11.2020 is, therefore, 12 set aside. 14. Consequently, the present writ appeal is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 4423 of 2020 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law. Considering that the matter pertains to disciplinary proceedings of the year 2017, we deem it appropriate to request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of its first listing after receipt of this order. 15. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left open to be considered by the learned Single Judge independently. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved