Delhi High Court
Rajbir vs Agricultural Produce Market ... on 25 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5869/1999
% 25th October, 2013
RAJBIR .... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Adv. for
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for setting aside of the
order dated 1.9.1997 terminating his services. Petitioner also claims
reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner claims that he was falsely got involved in criminal
case as per FIR 143/1994 and he was ultimately acquitted on 9.12.1997 in
terms of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and
WPC 5869/1999 Page 1 of 4
whereafter when he approached the respondents no.1and 2/employer for
reinstatement in services, he was not allowed to join duties. It is alleged that
petitioner's termination is illegal and therefore he claims that his termination
order is to be set-aside and he should be reinstated in services.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have asked for dismissal of the
petition on the ground that petitioner remained absent for duty without any
reason whatsoever from 29.9.1994 till 1997. Petitioner was asked to join
duties by sending him a communication at his last known address and on
failure of the petitioner to join, notices were published in the Hindi
newspaper 'Navbharat Times' on 28.2.1997 asking him to join duties. A
confirmation notice was also sent at the last known address of the petitioner
but the same was received back from the postal authority with the remarks
that no person in the name of Mr. Rajbir is living in the village and therefore
the notice was returned. On not receiving the response from the petitioner,
the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 1.9.1997
which is said to be in compliance of Rule 19(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules.
4. A reference to Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner shows that
petitioner did not join services from 4.5.1994 till 20.1.1998 due to his being
involved in a criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner admits his absence
WPC 5869/1999 Page 2 of 4
from duties. Merely because a criminal case is going on cannot mean that
petitioner has no obligation to not report to the employer for performing his
duties. It is not as if that the petitioner was incarcerated and therefore he
could not join duties. No doubt principles of natural justice have to be
followed but they have adequately been followed before passing the
termination order dated 1.9.1997 because notice was sent to the address of
the petitioner to join duties, and thereafter notices were even published in the
newspaper and confirmation notice was sent to the petitioner's address
which returned back with the remarks that petitioner was not living at the
given address. Since no response was received from the petitioner's side
and nor he joined duties, there was no other requirement to be complied with
so far as natural justice is concerned.
5. In view of the above, petitioner voluntarily abandoned his
services, his services were terminated after following the principles of
natural justice, no detailed enquiry was required because petitioner did not
respond to the notices issued against him and which were even published in
newspaper, and therefore, petitioner now cannot claim illegality of the
termination order dated 1.9.1997. In view of the above, there is no merit in
WPC 5869/1999 Page 3 of 4
the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their
own costs.
OCTOBER 25, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
