JUDGMENT
S.S. Saron, J.
1. By way of the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the orders dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3) and dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure-P.4). In terms of the earlier order dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3), the petitioner was discharged from service on account of his wilful absence from duty since 23.8.1996. In terms of the latter order dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure-P.4), the representation filed by the petitioner on a direction being issued by this Court on 15.12.2004 in CWP No. 19751 of 2004 has been considered and rejected.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Special Police Officer (`SPO’ for short) in the Punjab Police Department on 10.8.1994 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala (respondent No. 3). Thereafter, a case in relation to offences under Sections 411, 379, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him on 28.8.1996 at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian. The petitioner was acquitted in the said case by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala vide order dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure-P.1).
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner in fact had been discharged from service as SPO on account of the registration of the FIR against him. As the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case vide order dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure-P.1), he is liable to be reinstated in service.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. A perusal of the order discharging the petitioner from service i.e. the order dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3) would show that the petitioner was discharged from service on account of his wilful absence from duly since 23.8.1996. The petitioner earlier also filed CWP No. 19751 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2004 with the direction to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner by passing speaking order. The necessary speaking order has been passed on 8.2.2005 (Annexure-P.4). In the said order it has been mentioned that the petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3) due to his wilful absence from duty w.e.f. 23.8.1996 from Police Station Quilla Lal Singh and not due to his involvement in the criminal case. It may also be appropriate to note that the petitioner had filed another writ petition i.e. CWP No. 5653 of 2005 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.1.2006 (Annexure-P.6) as learned Counsel for the petitioner had stated that he would like to challenge the impugned order dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3).
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that in fact the order of discharge dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3) has been supplied to him in the year 2005. In this respect it has been submitted that it is from the order dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure-P.4) that the petitioner came to know that he has been discharged from service vide order dated 12.9.1996 (Annexure-P.3). It is thereafter that the petitioner filed an application dated 22.9.2005 for supplying him the copy of the order of discharge. The copy of the application dated 22.9.2005 submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala has been shown to us during the course of hearing. A perusal of the said application does not in any manner mention or show that the petitioner had not earlier been supplied the copy of the order of discharge dated 12.9.1996. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of discharge was made available to him or that he came to know of the same for the first time in the year 2005.
6. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner had been discharged from service on 12.9.1996 on account of his wilful absence from duty and not on account of the registration of the criminal case. This is evident from the reading of the order of discharge itself. In the circumstances, the petition is highly belated as he has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time. The petitioner was expected to file the writ petition within reasonable time of the cause of action as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it has been observed as follows:
It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work.
7. Keeping in view the above said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.