Chandresh Singh (Ex.-Ct) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 339 Del

JUDGMENT

C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The petitioner complains of violation of the order dated 26th November, 2002 passed in CWP No. 6703/2002. The order reads as under :-

"Petitioner, a constable in CRPF, was dismissed from service by impugned order dated 22.12,2000, He has admittedly taken an appeal on 23.2.2002 which is still pending and yet he has filed this petition which is premature at this stage. Realizing this, his counsel wanted to withdraw this, if direction could issue to Appellate Authority to dispose of his Appeal.

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the Appellant Authority concerned to dispose of petitioner's appeal within one month

from receipt of this order. Should petition feel aggrieved of any adverse orders passed against him thereafter, it shall be open to him to take appropriate remedy under law in the matter. dusty."

2. The respondents were apprised of the order and no steps were taken for disposal of the appeal. The respondents have violated the order and are to be punished.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties.

4. It is stated in the Counter-affidavit that departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with CRPF Rules and the petitioner was awarded by penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 23rd December, 2001 vide order of the same date. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 23rd February, 2002 against the aforesaid dismissal order. Though the appeal was barred by time, the delay was condoned and the appeal was considered on merits and rejected vide a detailed speaking order on 13th June, 2002. It is further stated that the proof of Service of the order was not traceable and as per remarks available in the office copy the said order dated 13th June, 2002 was issued on 14th June, 2002 by the GC office. But the dispatch clerk sent the copy to 27 Battalion where the petitioner was posted. It is contended that on account of administrative lapse the order could not be dispatched to the petitioner. However, a court of inquiry has been conducted into the said administrative lapse.

5. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the orders of this Court have since been complied with. However, there was delay on the part of the respondents in complying with the orders passed by this Court and further in communicating the order passed by the Appellate Authority to the petitioner. Failure to communicate the order of the Appellate Authority compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. If the orders had been conveyed, the petitioner would have saved the expenses and time and availed to the remedy under the Act and the Rules. The petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of the administrative lapse oh the part of the respondents. The petitioner was unduly harassed and must be compensated.

6. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the order of this Court having been complied with, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if respondents be put to terms for delay n compliance of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

7. No further orders are called for in the present petition. The same stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.