Dismisses Plea By SPO Challenging His Disengaging From Services Nearly 8 Years Ago

Jammu: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said that its discretionary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India were not meant for “lethargic” litigants.
“The remedy provided by the Constitution of India under Article 226 is discretionary in nature and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily come to the rescue of an indolent or acquiescent and lethargic litigant,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said while dismissing a petition filed by one Dilshad Ahmad Sangoo, who had challenged order issued by authorities on 11 January 2016 by virtue of which his services as Special Police Officer (SPO) were disengaged with effect from 2 October 2015 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty.
“There is inordinate delay of more than two years in filing the instant petition which has not been explained by the petitioner (Sangoo) satisfactorily. He cannot be permitted a belated resort to extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage,” the court said and dismissed his plea.
According to Shangoo, he was engaged as an SPO on 26 May 2000 and he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and served the department for more than 15 years.
Shangoo said that he was deputed for security duty with MLA, Kangan, and after seeking leave and permission from the MLA, in the last week of September, 2015, he proceeded for his treatment as he had fallen seriously ill.
Shangoo said that he could not report back to his duties on 2nd October, 2015, when his leave had expired but upon recovery from the ailments, when he reported back to duty, he was not allowed to join his duties.
“It is the contention of the petitioner (Shangoo) that he had fallen ill, as a result of which he could not attend his duties but the documents on record show that treatment of the petitioner continued only upto 17th November, 2015 but even thereafter he did not join his duties,” the court said, adding, “The order has been passed on 11th January, 2016 and by that date, the petitioner had, admittedly, not joined his duties. Therefore, it is a case where unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty is an admitted fact and, as such, no enquiry was otherwise required to be conducted by the respondents (authorities) to prove this fact.”
There is yet another aspect of the matter which was required to be noticed, the court said.
“The order has been issued on 11th January, 2016 but the petitioner (Shangoo) has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition on 2nd March, 2018, i.e., after a lapse of more than two years,” the court said, adding, “The only explanation for delay in filing the petition that has been tendered by the petitioner is that he made several representations to the respondents (authorities).” However, the court said, Shangoo has not placed on record any document to substantiate his contention.
“The respondents (authorities), in their reply, have denied the averments of the petitioner in this regard. Thus, the delay in filing the petition has remained unexplained,” the court said, adding, “The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, shows that he has acquiesced in the action of the respondents and it is only after a period of more than two years that he woke up from deep slumber and filed the instant petition.”

KR Desk