Nand Kishore vs Union Of India And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2251 Del

$-9

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision : May 14, 2013

+      W.P.(C) 5820/2012

       NAND KISHORE                                  ..... Petitioner

                    Represented by:      Mr.H.P Chakravarti, Advocate

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                       ..... Respondents

                    Represented by:      Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for
                                         R-1 & R-2

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated September 11, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A No.1957/2008, whereby the Original Application has been dismissed on being held to be barred by limitation.

2. Few facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the petitioner who was working as Peon was removed from services

W.P.(C) 5820/2012 1 of 3 vide order dated March 03, 1999 on the charge of being unauthorizedly absent. The charge-sheet was issued on July 20, 1998 on the ground that he had applied for leave from April 20, 1998 to May 08, 1998, but did not join duties thereafter. It is seen that he had accepted the charges levelled against him. He did not make any representation on the enquiry report. A copy of the order of removal was sent to his address. For next almost more than six years he did not care to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority. An appeal was preferred by him only on January 22, 2007 to the Appellate Authority under Rule 25 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which was rejected vide order dated May 11, 2007 as being highly belated. It is these orders which were challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal within one year of the final order as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. It is the conclusion of the Tribunal that even from order dated May 11, 2007, the O.A is barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal holds the petitioner as an incorrigible person habituated to being absent unauthorizedly from duty and dismissed the O.A.

3. It is noted that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on September 11, 2008. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on August 30, 2012, nearly after four years from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Clearly it is a case which is hit by delay and latches.

4. We agree with the conclusions of the Tribunal and dismiss the

W.P.(C) 5820/2012 2 of 3 writ petition.

5. No costs.

C.M No.11956/2012 (Stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

MAY 14, 2013 km

W.P.(C) 5820/2012 3 of 3