Upendra Rai vs Commissioner M.C.D. And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 681 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order made by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 13614 of 2004 on 16.8.2004.

2. The appellant being aggrieved by an order made by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 8.3.2002 compulsory retiring has made the grievance before this Court that the order is bad and the submissions have not been taken into consideration.

3. The appellate authority recording the order of compulsory retirement is a fact finding authority. The learned Single Judge is not required to interfere with the finding of facts. However, in case if there is any breach of law or procedure, certainly the Court can entertain the petition. Despite the fact that this was writ petition against the order made by appellate authority compulsory retiring the petitioner, learned Single Judge has examined the matter in detail and has held that it is not a fit case wherein Court is required to entertain the petition. This is a case where the petitioner was charge sheeted for not discharging his duties as a watchman in as much 200 benches of the school came to be sold. He was put under suspension. After considering the relevant evidence, finding has been arrived at. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neighbours are not examined or shopkeepers to whom the benches sold are not examined. What is required to be seen is that benches were missing and the appellant at the relevant time was chowkidar. It was his duty to report immediately. This speaks of a lot about has involvement.

4. That apart there is delay of 5 days in filing the appeal and 65 days in re-filing the appeal for which no details are given. A vague application is filed.

5. We find no reason to interfere. The appeal and the applications are dismissed.