Shri K.N. Rao vs Uoi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 471 Del

$~
9
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +    W.P.(C)No.6470/1999

%                              Date of decision: 23rd January, 2012

SHRI K.N. RAO                            ..... Petitioner
                      Through : None.


                      versus

UOI & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                      Through : Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate.

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

J.R. MIDHA, J.

*

1. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner though as

per record, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.K. Paul

has been served.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th

November, 1988 whereby he was removed from service on the

ground that he overstayed his leave with effect from 2nd May,

1988. The petitioner's case is that he was granted leave from

19th April, 1988 to 1st May, 1988 but he could not resume his

duty on expiry of the leave due to chronic depression and he

sent the intimation of his illness on telephone to the concerned

officers. The petitioner claims to have reported for duty in

June, 1997 but was not permitted to join. The petitioner

submitted an appeal dated 2nd July, 1997 which was rejected

on 2nd July, 1998 as time barred.

3. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that a

chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 15th July, 1988

which was duly served on him. Since no reply/response was

received, an enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated

29th July, 1988. The enquiry officer issued the enquiry notice to

the petitioner which was not responded. The petitioner was,

therefore, proceeded ex-parte and the final order imposing

penalty of removal from service was passed on 5th November,

1988. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the said

order to the appellate authority. After a lapse of 9 years, the

petitioner submitted an appeal to the Inspector General, CISF,

Patna which was rejected on 2nd July, 1988 on the ground of

inordinate delay. The respondents also raised the objection of

lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the petitioner was

working at Dhanbad, Bihar and the entire cause of action arose

there. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the counter

affidavit filed as back as on 16th May, 2000.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no

grounds to interfere with the decision of the respondents as

the petitioner has failed to make out any illegality, irregularity,

perversity or any jurisdictional error to warrant any

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since no one

is present on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no

option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance

of the petitioner and his counsel.

5. Dismissed in default for non-appearance.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 23, 2012 aj