Sh.Daya Ram-I vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3822 Del

      *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision: 02.07.2012

+                        W.P.(C) No.546/1998

Sh.Daya Ram-I                                   ...       Petitioners

                                     versus

University of Delhi & Ors.                      ...       Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners:     None.
For Respondents :        None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR


ANIL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No.1,

University of Delhi ordering for deduction of the amount of Rs.7,800/-

from the salary of the petitioner.

The allegations against the petitioner were that he illegally tapped

the electricity from the street pole near staff quarter allotted to the

petitioner which had resulted into power cut in E & F Block of Maurice

Nagar.

An Office Memorandum dated 13th November, 1995 was issued to

the petitioner, however, he did not submit any explanation.

Respondent No.1 disclosed that it had to spend a sum of Rs.7,800/-

without its fault for restoring electricity in Maurice Nagar, and thus, a

show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why an amount of

Rs.7,800/- be not deducted from his salary as per Rule 67 (iii) of the

University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1971.

Reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioner was found to

be unsatisfactory and consequently, the order was passed deducting the

amount of Rs.7,800/- from the salary of the petitioner which is challenged

by the petitioner.

The Rule was issued in this matter on 6th February, 1998.

The writ petition was taken up for hearing thereafter on 23rd

August, 2011, however, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner

on that date. The writ petition was not dismissed in default in the interest

of justice on that date and the matter was ordered to be listed in due

course.

Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing again on 15th

December, 2011, 2nd January, 2012 and on 20th March, 2012, however,

no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Today, again no one is present on behalf of the petitioner and in the

circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ

petition in default for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in default.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JULY 02, 2012 vk