JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Rifleman of SP Coy in 7th Bn. Manipur Rifles, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 28.6.2004 passed by the Commandant, 7th Bn. Manipur Rifles dismissing him from service in pursuance of departmental proceedings. The petitioner, while working as Rifleman of SP Coy, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him on allegation of commission of grave misconduct, negligence in duty and cowardice attitude while detailed as sentry at the barrack which was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. 2. The charges against the petitioner were that on 01.10.2001 at about 0045 hours some armed militants entered inside the residential complex of the Dy. Commissioner, Bishnupur and overpowered the petitioner and another while on sentry duty on the Sentry Post of the barrack and snatched away arms and ammunitions from them without any resistance from their side. It is alleged that because of their cowardish and negligence in duty the incident happened and as many as 10 (ten) arms and ammunitions were snatched away by overpowering them without any chance of retaliation. 3. The Deputy Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 25.3.2002. However, in course of enquiry he retired and another Enquiry Officer was appointed who completed the enquiry. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Office found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and was given an opportunity of making a representation against the said enquiry report. On consideration of the enquiry report as well as the representation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service and also directed that pay and allowances for the period he was under suspension shall be restricted to subsistence allowance only. Challenging the said order of dismissal from service, the present writ application has been filed. 4. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A., with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submitted that there has been inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Though the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 28.6.2004, writ application has been filed in 2012 and there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition explaining such long delay of 8 (eight) years in filing the writ petition. It was also contended by learned Sr. Govt. Though the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 28.6.2004, writ application has been filed in 2012 and there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition explaining such long delay of 8 (eight) years in filing the writ petition. It was also contended by learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondents that the departmental proceedings was conducted as per the rules and petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of hearing and there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental proceedings. Considering the nature of charges, the disciplinary authority found it fit to impose penalty of dismissal from service and therefore there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the said order. 5. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that along with the petitioner another constable was also charged with similar allegation. Similar incidents also took place at other places and sentries facing departmental proceeding with similar charges had approached Court and got relief. Therefore, only after those cases were disposed of, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition and accordingly there has been a delay of about 8 (eight) years. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that in course of the departmental proceeding the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appoint defence assistant and the enquiry officer conducted the proceeding entirely as the Prosecutor and Presenting Officer appointed on behalf of the department never acted as a Prosecutor. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner has filed this writ application almost 8 (eight) years after the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed. Nowhere in the writ petition the petitioner has made any statement explaining such delay in approaching the Court. In course of hearing the learned counsel drew attention of the court to some of the judgments attached to the writ petition and submitted that after disposal of those cases the petitioner was of the view that he may also get same relief and accordingly approached this Court by filing writ petition. One of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition. One of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition. From the said judgment it appears that 16 persons faced a joint departmental enquiry on allegation that they committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty on 4.10.1999 having failed to use their weapons when they were confronted with unknown U.G. elements and on the other hand surrendered their weapons without offering any resistance. All the sixteen persons were dismissed from service in January, 2001 and they filed writ petition in 2008. The said writ petition was allowed directing DE NOVO enquiry. 7. Referring to the said judgment, it was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said case also though the order of dismissal was passed in January, 2001 and the writ petition was filed in 2008, following a earlier decision of this Court, the said writ application was allowed and DE NOVO enquiry was directed. On reading the said judgment in Annexure-A/5 to the writ application, we find that the question of delay was neither raised nor argued before the Court and accordingly said question has not been dealt with in the judgment. Only following an earlier judgment, the writ application was allowed and DE NOVO enquiry was directed. In the present case, a specific objection is raised with regard to delay and there is no explanation whatsoever available in the writ petition explaining the delay of more than 8 (eight) years in filing the writ petition. We, therefore, are of the view that in absence of any explanation whatsoever the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. 8. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given opportunity to appoint a defence assistant and that the enquiry officer acted like a Prosecutor. 9. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondents produced the record of the departmental proceeding before us. On perusal of the record of the departmental proceeding, we find that the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 18.1.2003, had allowed the petitioner to engage one N. Narhari as his defence assistant for the purpose of departmental proceedings. 9. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondents produced the record of the departmental proceeding before us. On perusal of the record of the departmental proceeding, we find that the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 18.1.2003, had allowed the petitioner to engage one N. Narhari as his defence assistant for the purpose of departmental proceedings. Surprisingly, the petitioner did not contact the said defence assistant and the said defence assistant informed his inability to represent the petitioner on 24.3.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not turned up for consultation about the departmental enquiry. In view of the above, the petitioner now cannot say that he was not given opportunity to have a defence assistant. The other objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry officer acted as the Prosecutor. On perusal of the record we find that witnesses had been examined in course of the proceeding and there is nothing on record to show that the enquiry officer asked questions instead of the Presenting Officer. We have seen the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of the proceeding. But, we do not find anything to show that the Enquiry Officer was asking questions to the witnesses. For the reasons stated above, not only the writ application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, We also do not find any irregularity in the departmental proceeding. Writ Application is, accordingly, dismissed.