NARENDRA ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The power and jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially a power of equity wherein the conduct of the party approaching the Court is of paramount importance. The instant case is another example of a party approaching this Court not only after inordinate and unexplained delay but has slept over his rights.

(2.) The facts, bereft of the details are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Assam Police on 13/11/1971. A Departmental Proceeding No. 10/85 was initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service, vide the impugned order dtd. 13/8/1985. It is projected that though the petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal, the same was rejected on 1/9/2014 and challenging the same, the instant petition has been filed in the year 2020.

(3.) I have heard Shri A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the State respondents are represented by Shri C. K. Sharma Barua, the learned State Counsel.