This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a CISF employee seeking quashing of his disciplinary orders and restoration of pay due to negligence. The court held that the revision was filed after a lapse of five years, rendering it barred by delay and laches.
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.
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
M.Sathish Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
Page 1 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 18.01.2019 in his Order No.V-15016/CISF/SS/L&R/Rev/SK/01/2019-706 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 28.08.2013 in his order No.V15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-36/MSK/2013/8815 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 15.06.2013 in his order No.V15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj/MSK/2013/6105 and quash the same and direct the third respondents to provide all consequential service cum monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram, ACGSC
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 18.01.2019 in his Order No.V-15016/CISF/SS/L&R/Rev/SK/01/2019-706 by confirming the order of
the second respondent dated 28.08.2013 in his order No.V15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-36/MSK/2013/8815 and the order of the third
respondent dated 15.06.2013 in his order No.V15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj/MSK/2013/6105 and to direct the third
respondents to provide all consequential service cum monetary benefits.
Page 2 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
materials available on record.
Page 3 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
charge memorandum and passed the final order on 15.06.2013 and awarded
the punishment of reduction of pay for a period of two years. He further
submitted that aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent within the stipulated time and the same was rejected by the second respondent. Due to lack of knowledge of the statutory procedures, the petitioner has preferred the revision petition with a delay of 5 years.
Page 4 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
(i) Civil Appeal No.6514 of 1997 dated 19.09.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) S.L.P.No.8077 of 2006 dated 15.01.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iii) W.P.No.7716 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Delhi High Court.
(iv) Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(v) M.P.No.1 of 2015 in CMA.No.10042 of 2015 dated 08.04.2015 passed by this Court.
(vi) First Appeal No.11378 of 2012 dated 02.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
(vii) Civil Writ Petition No.6136 of 2019 dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi.
7.On perusal of the records, it reveals that after a lapse of five years, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition. As per the judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these petitions are rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
Page 5 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
05.09.2024
vkr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
Page 6 of 7
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
W.P.No.20814 of 2021
05.09.2024
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a disciplinary appeal filed after a lapse of five years is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner is disentitled to the revision due to delay and laches.
Whether the impugned order confirming reduction of pay for negligence should be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Sathish Kumar
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Sector
The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Unit
The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, VSP, Visakhapatnam
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
