NO. 083420182 L/CT. GEETA  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

W.P.(C) 80/2021 Page 1 of 4
$~Suppl. -4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 80/2021
NO. 083420182 L/CT. GEETA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.K.Gaur, Advocate.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr.Shashank Bajpai with Ms.Shakun
Sudha and Mr.Dhananjay Tewari, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 11
th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. :
2. Present writ petition ha s been filed challenging the order dated
24th November, 2011 whereby the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty
of ‘removal from service’, which was modified vide order dated
09th February, 2012 of the appellate authority whereby the penalty was
reduce d to ‘reduction of pay by three increments for a period of three years
with cumulative effect’, against which the petitioner’s revision petition has
been rejected vide order dated 21st February, 2020 on the ground of being
‘time barred’. Petitioner also pr ays for a direction to the respondents to
restore the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules and
2021:DHC:104-DBW.P.(C) 80/2021 Page 2 of 4
instructions on subject. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated
21st
“04. AND WHEREAS, I have me ticulously examined the case.
According to section 9(2A) of CISF Act 1968, the aggrieved
person should prefer a revision petition within a period of six
months from the date on which the appellate order is
communicated to authority on 09.02.2012 and she acknowledged
the same on 17.02.2012. Hence, the petitioner should have
preferred the revision petition within a period of six months i.e., on
or before 16.08.2012, but she has preferred the revision petition
dated 20.12.2019 after lapse of more t han 07 yea rs and 10 months.
In the revision petition, she has not stated any valid reason which
prevented her from filing the revision petition within stipulated
time. As stated by her in their revision petition, she lost her bag
containing the entire set of the do cuments pertaining to the
enquiry proceedings held against her for which she filed an FIR
No. 1021 dated 13.09.2018 at Tajganj Police Station. Losing the
documents in 2018 cannot be a valid excuse for not filing a
revision on or before 16.08.2012.
05. THEREFORE, I am unable to condone the inordinate
delay of more than 07 years and 10 months in filing the revision
petition and hence, without going into the merits of the case, I
hereby REJECT the revision petition as “TIME BARRED.”
February, 2020 reads as under:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had lost the
documents of the departmental proceedings and the same were made
available after the order of this Court in WP(C) 5134/2019. He states that it
was only thereafter that the petitioner was able to file the r evision petition.
He emphasizes that the revision petition had been rejected by the reviewing
authority only on the grounds of limitation and the other contentions raised
by the petitioner had not been appreciated at all.
2021:DHC:104-DBW.P.(C) 80/2021 Page 3 of 4
4. This Court finds that there has be en an inordinate delay in filing the
revision petition which has not been adequately explained by the petitioner.
The petitioner has taken a vague plea that because certain documents were
lost and the petitioner was posted in remote places that she was una ble to
file the revision petition. This Court is unable to accept the same. It is settled
law that the law favors the vigilant and not the indolent. The Supreme Court
in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and
Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 48 has held as under: –
“14. ……It is now a well-settled principle of law and we need not
dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation
is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is
required for filing a civil proceed ing ought to be the guiding
factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is
available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it
is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction
has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the
equitable doctrine, namely, “delay defeats equity” has its fullest
application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The d iscretionary relief can be had provided one has
not by his act or conduct given a go- by to his rights. Equity
favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being
the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has
been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession
upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot
arise……”
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law as well as the
fact that the petitioner has failed to provide any reasonable cause for the
delay of nearly eight years in filing the revision petition, we find no
infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the present petition is
dismissed.
2021:DHC:104-DBW.P.(C) 80/2021 Page 4 of 4
6. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learn ed counsel through e -mail.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 11, 2021
KA

2021:DHC:104-DB