1 2026:CGHC:17763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 205 of 2016  John Freeman S/o Late Shri E. S. Papachand, Aged About 50 Years Ex. Security Guard, R/o Jarahabhata, Papachand Gali, Bilaspur, P. S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus  South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its General Manager, Chirmiri Area Of S E C L, Post West Chirimiri Colliery, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.04 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and may kindly be pleased to Set-aside and quash the impugned dismissal order dated 02.07.1990 passed by the respondent nol (Annexure-P/1) and impugned order dated 25/07/2011 passed by the respondent no.2 in Application no. CGIT/LC/R/150/91 (Annexure-P/2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Security Guard along with full back wages from the date of dismissal and all other consequential benefits and found the order passed by the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.22 17:07:14 +0530 2 respondent no. 2, is illegal. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compute the seniority and continuity in service from the date of removal of the petitioner to till the date of reinstatement in service of the petitioner and also grant the interest @ 18% per annum in the back wages of dismissal period. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Security Guard under the respondents. A show-cause notice was issued on 15.09.1989 making allegations that on 19.08.1989 at around 2 a.m., the petitioner did not open the gate for Personal Manager, SECL, Chirmiri despite many efforts and further he misbehaved with his driver. The petitioner filed reply to show- cause notice and denied allegations. The disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer and presenting officer, and thereafter, full fledged enquiry was conducted wherein allegation of drunkenness was found not proved, whereas, allegation of misbehavior was found proved. The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of dismissal from services. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur. The statement of claim was filed on 31.10.1991. The SECL/employer filed reply and matter remained pending for considerable period. The final award was passed on 25.07.2011, whereby the statement of claim was dismissed and reference was decided against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged said award by filing 3 this petition on 03.10.2016. In para 7 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that the petitioner pursued the matter before the learned Tribunal for long 20 years and during that period he was in regular contact with his counsel, but since 2008 there was no communication between them and his advocate did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Tribunal was never communicated. It is further pleaded that the petitioner himself inquired the status of the case and came to know about its dismissal. It is stated that the delay part has properly been explained. 3. Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate would submit that there was only one allegation against the petitioner in the article of charge that he failed to open the gate when driver of the vehicle of Personal Manager blew horn. He would contend that the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. With regard to delay, Mr. Tiwari would submit that the petitioner has properly explained the cause of delay in para 7 of the writ petition. He would contend that the counsel engaged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal failed to communicate the award passed by the learned Tribunal and that was the reason, petitioner could not challenge the award passed by the learned Tribunal within reasonable time. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate appearing for respondent would oppose. He would submit that award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 25.07.2011, whereas, this petition has been failed on 03.10.2016. He would contend that the petitioner failed to explain sufficient cause for such delay. He would contend that the petitioner never approached his counsel when he did not receive any communication and further no 4 complaint has been made against said advocate. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others reported in (2024) 15 SCC 215 and judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Jagdish and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 1480. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of article of charge would show that the petitioner, who was working as Security Guard under the respondents failed to open the gate on 19.08.1989 when driver of the Personal Manager blew horn of the vehicle. It is also alleged that the petitioner was in drunken condition and misbehaved with the driver of the said vehicle. In the departmental enquiry, the allegation with regard to intoxication could not be proved. Further allegation of misbehavior was found proved. The act of the petitioner was misconduct within the meaning of Model Standing Orders under Section 17(1) (e), (j), (r) which reads as follows :- (e) Drunkness, fighting or riotous diserderly or indecent behaviour while on duty at the place of work. (j) Sleeping on duty (r) Threating abusing or assaulting any superior co-worker, 7. The prosecution examined V.K. Sharma, V.K. Pathak and Dhankumar. Shri Dhankumar (PW/2) categorically stated that the petitioner caught hold of his collar, abused him and assaulted too. The statement of Dhankumar was corroborated with the evidence of Shri V.K. Sharma and Shri V.K. Pathak. 5 The said piece of evidence remained uncontroverted. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can examine the propriety and validity of the order passed in the departmental enquiry, first if such an order has been passed by an incompetent authority; Second, if it is in violation of the principles of natural justice; or third, if it is contrary to the rules or regulations governing the conduct of the enquiry or violates any statutory provision. In the present case, no such grounds have been taken by the petitioner. 9. With regard to delay and laches, it is not in dispute that the order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 25.07.2011, whereas, this petition was filed on 03.10.2016. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity (supra) held that the petitioner who 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. The delay defeats equity, relevant para 9 is reproduced herein-below :- “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 latches 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 6 granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches 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.” 11. In the matter of Jagdish (supra), plea of non communication of final order was taken by the petitioner and High Court of Allahabad held that it is nowhere indicated that the appellants were in contact with the counsel and he failed to communicate. The party, which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case. The relevant para 6 is reproduced herein-below :- “6. Be that as it may, the determination made by the revisional authority and learned Single Judge after going through the application made in this regard whereby the allegations were made against the counsel regarding not informing, however, it is nowhere indicated that the appellants have been contacting the counsel and was not given the information pertaining to dismissal. The party, which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case.” 12. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Allahabad, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby 7 dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant