JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged penalty order dated 10.01.1996 (Annex.-16) whereby he was reduced in rank to the post of LDC as well as the order dated 23.01.1996 (Annex.-17) by which the remaining benefits of suspension were forfeited. He has also challenged the issuance of charge-sheet and rejection of appeal, and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to repay the ration money amounting to Rs.6,988/- along with interest, and to regularize the suspension period. He has also prayed for restraining the respondents from proceeding further in respect of charge-sheet dated dated 26.04.1996. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of LDC in CRPF on 10.05.1969 and confirmed on the aforesaid post on 01.11.1972. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of UDC on 16.04.1988. However, on arising dispute regarding ration money allowance, without there being any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, one charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents to supply necessary documents, so that he can properly defend the charges levelled against him in charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of proceedings in relation to first charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994, one another charge-sheet dated 27.03.1995 was issued to him levelling charges of insubordination and defiance of orders passed by the higher authorities. Reply to the said charge- sheet was given by the petitioner, however, ignoring the same, the respondents appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner by issuing one letter dated 06.06.1995 (Annex.-13) submitted that he has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet and had nothing more to add, nor would he like to participate further in the inquiry proceedings. It was submitted that even the subsistence allowance was not allowed to the petitioner during inquiry whereas, he was placed under suspension and was entitled for the subsistence allowance. It was submitted that even the subsistence allowance was not allowed to the petitioner during inquiry whereas, he was placed under suspension and was entitled for the subsistence allowance. In quite biased manner, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and without supplying copy of the inquiry report, penalty order dated 10.01.1996 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority wherein it was observed that the petitioner delinquent has committed misconduct of not accepting the official orders meant for him and he was not a fit person to be retained in his service but considering his length of service, a lenient view was taken and a punishment of reduction of rank of the petitioner to the post of LDC for a period of two years was imposed upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that feeling aggrieved by the penalty order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority pointing out the material flaws and defects in inquiry proceedings and prayed for quashing the penalty order. However, the petitioner remained unsuccessful and the Appellate Authority also dismissed his appeal by a criptic order. 6. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, in quite arbitrary manner one another charge-sheet dated 26.04.1996 was issued maliciously against the petitioner for defeating his legitimate rights. The respondents have unnecessarily tortured and victimized the petitioner, hence, the impugned orders and charge-sheets are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents categorically denying the allegations levelled in the writ petition. It was submitted that the petitioner has been habitual offender of the orders passed by the higher authorities and he even refused to accept the official letters addressed to him therefore, under these circumstances, he was placed under suspension by exercising the powers under the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules. It was submitted that the petitioner did not co-operate with the Inquiry Officer. Copies of all the relied upon documents was given to him yet, he chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Despite, several opportunities when no evidence was led by the petitioner in support of his defence, nor did he appear during inquiry then under these circumstances, ex parte proceedings in inquiry was conducted and report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Despite, several opportunities when no evidence was led by the petitioner in support of his defence, nor did he appear during inquiry then under these circumstances, ex parte proceedings in inquiry was conducted and report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Copy of inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner but he did not avail opportunity to make a representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, on meticulous examination and analysis of the evidences on record, the Disciplinary Authority although came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service yet, a lenient view was taken and a penalty of reduction in rank to the post of LDC for a period of two years was imposed, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The inquiry proceedings have been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules and there is no illegality or infirmity in the penalty order. The appeal filed by the appellant was also objectively considered by the Appellate Authority and the grounds raised have been properly dealt with. It was also submitted that pursuant to charge-sheet dated 26.04.1996, the petitioner has already been dismissed from service vide order dated 03.05.1997. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and analysed the record. 9. It is settled proposition of law that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters is very limited. While exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority, nor can make any reappraisal of the evidence. Interference can be made only in the cases where, the petitioner can establish apparent and manifest violation of procedure prescribed under the statutory rules or denial of opportunity to defend. 10. In the instant case, I find that definite and specific charges were framed and communicated to the petitioner by way of serving charge-sheet dated 27.03.1995. Instead of filing specific reply to the charges, the petitioner has given vague and evasive reply to the charge-sheet. When the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the petition restrained himself from participating in the inquiry proceedings for no good reasons. The record reveals that even copies of all the relied upon documents was served upon the petitioner. Instead of filing specific reply to the charges, the petitioner has given vague and evasive reply to the charge-sheet. When the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the petition restrained himself from participating in the inquiry proceedings for no good reasons. The record reveals that even copies of all the relied upon documents was served upon the petitioner. When the petitioner chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings, finding no other alternative, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and submitted his inquiry report. It is also reflected from the record that even copy of inquiry report was also served upon the petitioner yet, he did not make any representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has properly examined the record as well as the findings of Inquiry Officer. The penalty order would also reveal that although, on account of seriousness of the charges and conduct of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority intended to pass a harsher penalty order, yet he took a lenient view and passed a lesser penalty of reduction of rank to the post of LDC for a period of two years. Thus, it is clear that there was no procedural flaw, violation of principles of natural justice or defiance of any statutory rules in conducting inquiry against the petitioner or in passing the penalty order. 11. I have also examined the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority and found that the points raised in appeal have been properly dealt with by the Appellate Authority. He has decided the appeal by giving sound reasonings and under these circumstances, no interference is required in the instant matter, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16064/2024 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed dismissal order dated 03.05.1997 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF Rampur and has prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. While challenging the order dated 03.05.1997, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet dated 26.04.1996, pursuant to which penalty order dated 03.05.1997 has been passed, was already challenged by the petitioner in earlier Writ Petition No.4862/1997, yet the proceedings of inquiry were conducted ex parte by the Disciplinary Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing or defence to the petitioner. Even copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner nor was he granted any opportunity to represent against the report of Inquiry Officer. Hence, learned counsel submits that the inquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as well as in defiance of the disciplinary rules applicable upon the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset has raised so many preliminary objections, including that the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 03.05.1997 by filing writ petition before this Court on 08.10.2024. As such there is apparent and manifest delay of more than 27 years in approaching the Writ Court. In entire memo of writ petition, no plausible explanation has been given to justify the delay of 27 years. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from the vice of delay and latches and is liable to be rejected. 4. In addition to above, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the dismissal order yet, instead of approaching the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has directly filed instant writ petition, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed only on that ground. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the penalty order was passed way back in the year 1997 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2024. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction and cannot be exercised in favuor of person who was not diligent of his own rights and has approached this Court after a long and unexplainable delay of 27 years. 7. Apart from above, no justification has been put forward by the petitioner for avoiding the remedy of appeal, otherwise available to the petitioner under the rules against the penalty order. It is settled proposition of law that in ordinancy circumstances, extra jurisdiction to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statutory rules. 8. It is settled proposition of law that in ordinancy circumstances, extra jurisdiction to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statutory rules. 8. Even otherwise the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any patent illegality or manifest violations of Rules in the inquiry procedure warranting any interference in the writ jurisdiction, nor has made out any case for interfering in quantum of punishment. 9. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and not maintainable, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this judgment be placed on record of connected petition.