J.B.Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3135 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 452 OF 2007

                                  Date of Pronouncement: July 05, 2011


        J.B.GUPTA
                                                          ..... Petitioners
                             Through    None.

                        versus


        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
                       Through          None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? No.
2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.8.2005 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1302/2004 titled

Shri J.B. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., whereby the Tribunal has

dismissed the O.A. of the petitioner.

2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the penalty of

compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner by order dated

12.06.2003 contending that it could not be given retrospective effect

from 31.08.1999.

3. The Tribunal had repelled the contention of the petitioner on the

ground that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the plea that he

could not be compulsorily retired w.e.f. 31.08.1999 is not tenable. It

was held that normally the penalty is not to be imposed with

retrospective effect but it is dependent upon the facts and

circumstances of the case.

4. In the case of petitioner, it was noticed that the disciplinary

authority, by order dated 17.08.1999 had imposed the penalty of

removal from service w.e.f. 31.08.1999. In appeal, which was decided

in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.05.2001, the

appellate authority on 14.02.2002, had modified the order of removal

from service and reduced the penalty to compulsory retirement with

cut in the pension and gratuity. The Tribunal held that the penalty of

compulsory retirement, which was imposed in modification of the

order of the disciplinary authority, thus, came into effect on

31.08.1999. In the circumstances, it was held that by no stretch of

reasoning, it could be said that the penalty imposed by the appellate

authority while disposing of the appeal is with retrospective effect and

contention of the petitioner was not accepted.

5. The principal contention of the petitioner seems to be the date of

the compulsory retirement which has been repelled in the

circumstances as detailed hereinabove. The Tribunal has also dealt

with other pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner and has also

gone into every precedent cited on behalf of the parties.

6. Today, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that no one had appeared on

behalf of the petitioner even on 25.08.2009, however, no adverse order

was passed on that date and the matter was adjourned for

24.11.2009.

8. The matter was taken up on 25.11.2009. However, no one had

appeared even on that date and in the interest of justice, no adverse

order was passed and the matter was allowed to remain on Board in

the category of 'Regular Matters'.

9. The matter was again taken up on 4.7.2011. Again, no one had

appeared on behalf of the petitioner, however, no adverse order was

passed against the petitioner.

10. In the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the writ

petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel.

11. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

JULY 05, 2011 rd