Ex. Ct. Sadhu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 357 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            WP(C) No.2826/1999

%                       Date of Decision: 18.01.2012

Ex. Ct. Sadhu Ram                                           .... Petitioner

                     Through Nemo


                                 Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                    .... Respondents

                     Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal & Mr.Gaurav Khanna,
                             Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. No one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 8th August,

2011 when the matter was taken up for hearing, therefore, this Court

had issued Court notice to the petitioner and listed the matter for

hearing in the category of after notice miscellaneous matters.

2. The notice issued pursuant to Court orders dated 8th August,

2011 was served on the petitioner through his son, namely, Sh.Sunil

Kumar. Despite the service of notice, no one had appeared on behalf of

the petitioner on 31st October, 2011. On 31st October, 2011 no adverse

order was passed against the petitioner in the interest of justice and the

matter was listed for 9th January, 2012.

3. On 9th January, 2012, again no one had appeared on behalf of

the petitioner. This Court again did not pass adverse order against the

petitioner in the interest of justice though the petitioner had been

served through his son Sh.Sunil Kumar on 31st October, 2011. The

matter was adjourned for today, i.e., 18th January, 2012.

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

5. Perusal of the writ petition also reveals that the petitioner was

enrolled in the BSF on 9th December, 1978. In July, 1991, the petitioner

was granted leave from 23rd July, 1991 to 13th August, 1991. After

expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner did not report back to his

Unit. Since the petitioner did not report back to the Unit for more than

30 days and over stayed beyond the leave period, a one man Court of

Inquiry under Section 62 of the BSF Act was constituted. Before

ordering one man court of enquiry, notices dated 25th August, 1991 and

10th September, 1991 were also sent to the petitioner.

6. Based on the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, declaring the

petitioner a deemed deserter, a show cause notice was sent to the

petitioner on 18th October, 1991 proposing to terminate his service by

way of dismissal.

7. Petitioner did not file any reply nor report to the unit. Another

notice dated 15th November, 1991 was again sent to the petitioner,

which was also not responded to by the petitioner.

8. Perusal of the record produced by the respondents shows that

notice sent in November, 1991 was refused to be accepted by the

petitioner on 23rd November, 1991.

9. The respondents, therefore, passed the order dated 2nd December,

1991 dismissing the petitioner from the service.

10. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is left

with no option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance

of petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed

in default.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

January 18, 2012 vk