An applicant seeking quashing of his 1998 dismissal from CISF service and pension benefits. The court dismissed the writ petition as time-barred due to inordinate delay, finding the explanation of mental illness unsupported by sufficient details.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010151452024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3854/2024
EX CONSTABLE FORCE NO. 884659103 JAYANTA GOGOI S/O- RAMA GOGOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DOLLOBARI GAON, P.O. PEOLIPHUKAN, P.S. GELEKY, IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785685
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NEW DELHI PIN- 110001
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL NES HQR KOLKATA CISF PREMISES NO. 553 EAST KOLKATA TOWNSHIP KASBA KOLKATA PIN- 700107
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NEZ HQR KOLKATA PREMISES NO. 553 EAST KOLKATA TOWNSHIP KASBA KOLKATA PIN- 700107
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE GROUP COMMANDANT CISF GROUP HQRS GUWAHATI BEHARBARI ASSAM PIN- 781029
6:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CISF UNIT CPM PANCHGRAM P.O. PANCHGRAM IN THE DISTRICT OF HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788802
7:THE ENQUIRY OFFICER CUM ASSISTANT COMMANDANT CISF UNIT CPM PANCHGRAM P.O. PANCHGRAM IN THE DISTRICT OF HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 78880
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN, MR. J HATIMURIA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
14-08-2024
Heard Shri J. Hatimuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri RKD Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner was a Constable in the CISF and in the year 1998 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The said proceeding culminated in an order of 27.06.1998 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner had preferred an appeal on 20.07.1998 which was also rejected by the appellate authority on 14.07.1999. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the proceeding, no proper opportunity was granted to
Page No.# 3/4
the petitioner. He has contended that due to the impugned order of dismissal, the petitioner is deprived from pension under the Rules holding the field. It is also averred that after the dismissal, the petitioner had become mentally unfit and is now medically sound and therefore has approached this Court.
3. Per contra, Shri Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI has submitted that even without entering into the merits of the dispute sought to be raised, there is no proper explanation at all as to the inordinate delay from the order of dismissal passed in the year 1998. It is submitted that apart from a bald statement made in paragraph 16 along with a medical certificate of 28.04.2024, there is no explanation at all.
4. To examine the aforesaid aspect of delay and laches, this Court has examined the averments made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. For ready reference, the statements made in paragraph 16 is extracted herein below:-
“16. That the Petitioner respectfully begs to state that after dismissal from service, he had become mentally unfit person. That the Petitioner had been suffering from depression and mental instability with forgetfulness from many years. That, recently he has recovered from the said mental illness. Now, the Petitioner is medically found fit. That the delay in filing the present writ petition was caused due to mental illness of the Petitioner. Further, due to his mental illness, he was under medical treatment for long years. As a result of Petitioner's mental illness he was not sound mind. Therefore, there is delay in approaching before this Hon'ble Court. Now, the Petitioner is medically found fit and therefore he is approaching before this Hon'ble High Court.”
5. The aforesaid pleadings are supported by a medical certificate issued on 28.04.2024. As per the said certificate, the petitioner had suffered from depression and mental instability with forgetfulness for many years. Apart from the said contents, there is no details at all as regards the nature of the ailment, the period of treatment etc.
Page No.# 4/4
6. Though the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 per se may not have an application in a writ proceeding, the aspect of laches is one of the important factors which is required to be taken into consideration, moreso when this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercises equitable jurisdiction.
7. In the instant case, the delay is not only inordinate but lacks any acceptable explanation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is not liable to be entertained and accordingly the same is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed after an inordinate delay of over two decades admits of an acceptable explanation based solely on alleged mental illness.
Whether the petitioner's claim of mental instability justifies the delay in approaching this court in a writ proceeding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶29
JAYANTA GOGOI
THE UNION OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
