Dismissed¶22

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025LPA/995/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA-995-2025 (O&M), decided 1st July 2025; condonation of delay; 21-year delay in challenging dismissal from service dated 18.09.2003; writ CWP-6155-2025 decided 05.03.2025; mercy petition rejected 13.06.2017; misconduct/absence from duty; punishments awarded; Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and Another, 2025 INSC 672; delay not to be condoned merely as generosity; bonafide explanation necessary; appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The ground for the appellant's dismissal from service was misconduct on account of being absent from duty; punishments had been awarded to him, and his mercy petition dismissed on 13.06.2017 was left unchallenged for a long time. ¶21

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

126

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA-995-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1^st July, 2025

¶4

ISHWAR SI N GH

¶5

..…...Appellant(s)

¶6

V/s.

¶7

STATE OF HA RYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶9

Present M s. Meghna Nehra, Advocate f or the applicant-appellant.

¶10

¶11

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶12

CM-2459-LPA-2025

¶13

A pplication is allowed and th e appellant is exempted from filing certifie d copies of the documents mentioned therein. LPA-995-2025 (O&M)

¶14

1. T he present Appeal assails ord e r dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned S ingle Bench in CWP-6155-20 2 5 preferred by the appellant herein.

¶15

2. T aking into consideration the f a ct that he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 18.09.2003 by prefe r ring a Writ Petition in the year 2025 before this Court and no cogent re a sons have come up for the inordinate de l ay in approaching this Court.

¶16

3. L earned counsel for the appell a nt has attempted to point out that the dela y in approaching the Court w a s not intentional and was on account of th e family circumstances.

¶17

Suresh Kumar 2025.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

LPA-995-2025 (O&M)

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

4. W e would have understood i f the delay would have been reasonable s a y 3 years of 4 years, but in th e present case, the delay is of long 21 years in approaching this Court.

¶21

5. T he ground for dismissal fro m service is misconduct on account of b eing absent from duty. We also notice that there were punishments also awarded to the appellant. Despite the dismissal of his mercy petition vide order dated 13.06.2017, he did not challenge it for a long time. E v en thereafter, he did not appro a ch the Court to challenge the orders.

¶22

6. T he Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and Another ; 2025 INSC 6 72, has observed that delay should not b e condoned merely as generosit y and bonafides of explanation is necessary. Therefore, we would not acce p t the reasons coming forward for the inordinate delay. The impugned ju d gment passed by the learned Single Benc h , therefore, does not warrant any interference. The Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.