Article 226 relief may be refused for delay and disputed facts in a departmental dismissal challenge.

Relief under Article 226 may be refused where the challenge to a dismissal order is brought after inordinate delay, because unreasonable delay is ordinarily sufficient ground to decline discretionary writ interference. The text also notes that disputed questions arising from a departmental enquiry, including whether due opportunity was given and whether there was bias or mala fides, are largely factual matters and are not ordinarily resolved in writ proceedings. The availability of an ordinary civil remedy is relevant in deciding whether to grant extraordinary relief, so the writ challenge was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the dismissal order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained despite inordinate delay, and whether disputed questions of fact arising from the departmental enquiry could be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition was filed long after the dismissal and the explanation for the delay was rejected. Relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and unreasonable delay is ordinarily a sufficient ground to refuse interference. The matter also involved conflicting affidavits on whether due opportunity had been given, whether there was bias or malafides, and whether the dismissing authority had acted as a complainant or witness. Such issues are largely questions of fact and are not ordinarily resolved in writ proceedings. The availability of an ordinary civil remedy was also relevant in declining extraordinary relief.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained, and the dismissal order was not interfered with.

---