Delhi High Court
Ramesh D. Sarasia vs Airporta Authority Of India on 21 July, 2006
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, S Muralidhar
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
CM No. 9775/2006 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM NO. 9774/2006 (delay)
The application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
LPA No. 1661/2006
1. This appeal challenges the order dated 31st August, 2005, passed the learned Single Judge. The appellant went on leave some time in May, 1995, after receiving news of the illness of his mother. The date when the appellant was granted/sanctioned leave is not apparent. Originally, the appellant sought leave for 10 days on 26th May, 1996. Thereafter he sought extension up to 20th August, 1995 and then up to 3rd February, 1996. Neither the leave nor the extension of leave appears to have been sanctioned. The appellant is unable to show that he ever reported for duty after August, 1995.
2. On 20th March, 2004, after a period of 9 years, the appellant addressed a letter to the Chairman as well as the Secretary, Civil Aviation Department evincing his desire to report back for duty. The Airport Authority of India, respondent No. 1 herein wrote a letter to the appellant on 24th June, 2004 informing him that his name has been struck off from the rolls w.e.f. 19th December, 1995, in terms of Clause 31(2)(vi) of the relevant Regulations, which reads as follows:
31(2) ...
(vi) If an employee remains absent without any intimation/prior permission for a period of two months he will be deemed to have abandoned his job and his services will be terminated without any notice.
3. The appellant has nowhere disclosed when his leave was sanctioned and what impelled him to approach this Court by way of a writ petition, only some time in 2005. The learned Single Judge has observed the plea of violation of principles of natural justice was, in these circumstances, to no avail and has declined to entertain the writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the said regulations could not be relied on as it had not received the approval of the Central Government due to the non-publication in the official Gazette. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of High Court of Bombay in International Airport Authority of India v. Viru Muthu Sukhlingam and Anr. 1993 II CLR 521.
5. In our view even if the said regulations did not hold the field, the conduct of the appellant as noted by the learned Single Judge and the laches in approaching the writ court, disentitled the appellant to any relief under the discretionary jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we find no infirmity in the judgment under appeal.
6. A regards the violation of principles of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan held, in similar facts as the present case, that such cases would fall under the "useless formality" exception as explained in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan . In the latter case the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that (at p. 147): "Where on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of principles of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice, but because Courts do not issue futile writs."
7. On the undisputed facts of the present case we have no doubt that entertaining the writ petition would have been a futile exercise.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
