Sushil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 954 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+           Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000/2011

SUSHIL KUMAR                              ....Petitioner
                   Through     Pt. Sama Singh, Advocate.

                         VERSUS

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.            .....Respondents
                 Through Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate
                             with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

% 17.02.2011

The petitioner Sushil Kumar was appointed as a Constable in

Delhi Police on 12th January, 1998. His services were terminated on 20th

April, 1999 on the ground of unauthorized absence, but on his

representation dated 11th May, 1999, the aforesaid order of

termination was recalled and he was reinstated in service with the

direction to initiate departmental proceedings. Departmental

proceedings ended in award of punishment of withholding of three

increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 13th November,

2001. The said order has become final and binding and is not subject

matter of challenge.

2. The petitioner again absented himself from duty from 11th

August, 2001. Till 13th November, 2001, three absentee notices were

issued to the petitioner on 29th August, 2001, 8th October, 2001 and

22nd October, 2001 with a direction to report for duty immediately, but

without positive response. The petitioner was directed to report to

C.M.O., Meerut if he was ill, but he failed to do so. Departmental

proceedings were initiated and the enquiry officer in his report dated

9th April, 2002 held that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of

unauthorized absence. Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th

May, 2002 called upon the petitioner to make representation on the

findings of the enquiry officer within 15 days. Two opportunities were

granted for personal hearing but the petitioner did not appear. On 31 st

July, 2002, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

3. After nearly 5 years on 9th May, 2007, the petitioner filed an

appeal against the order of dismissal dated 31st July, 2002. This appeal

was dismissed on the ground that it was time barred, vide order dated

24th August, 2007. The order of dismissal and the appellate order were

made subject matters of challenge before the Central Administrative

Tribunal in OA No. 1968/2009 which stands dismissed by order dated

10th August, 2008.

4. The plea taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal and before

us is that Mr. Anil Kumar, relative of the petitioner, who was also

working in Delhi Police, was requested by the petitioner to file an

appeal. On the assurance given by Mr. Anil Kumar, original papers were

handed over to him and the petitioner was not aware that no appeal

had been preferred or was pending. It is also alleged that the petitioner

was ill and on account of his medical condition, was not in a position to

file an appeal for five years.

5. The learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after

examining the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not see any

reason or ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

The petitioner after being appointed as Constable on 12th January,

1998, had absented himself and punishment of withholding of 3

increments with cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 13th

November, 2001. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

and inspite of this punishment, the petitioner absented himself from

duty from 11th August, 2001 to 12th February, 2002 and again from 15th

February, 2002 till the order of dismissal on 31st July, 2002. That apart

after the dismissal order dated 31st July, 2002, he filed the appeal after

about 5 years on 9th July, 2007. It cannot be believed or accepted that

during these five years, the petitioner was continuously ill and was not

in a position or could not verify the fact of filing of an appeal. That

apart the excuse that he had handed over the original papers to his

colleague and relative Mr. Anil Kumar, can hardly justify the delay and

cannot be regarded as sufficient cause. The petitioner has shown

complete disinterest and disregard in performing his duties. The plea of

sympathy does not merit consideration in view of his indifferent and

callous conduct. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine

without any order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 KKB