Delhi High Court
Sunder Lal vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... on 27 February, 2015
Author: Kailash Gambhir
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 27th February 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 1887/2015
SUNDER LAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Advocate
versus
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Dr. Puran Chand, Mr. S. Rajappa,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 27.02.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
By this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
O.A. No. 15/2011.
Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was on leave from 17.5.1999 to
25.9.2000 and he was not allowed to join back his duties on 26.09.2000. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had been
writing letters to the respondents raising protest for not permitting him to
join back his duties, but the respondents have not responded to the request
made by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that for the first time the
petitioner had received a Memorandum dated 9.3.2009 informing him about
his removal from service w.e.f. the date of his remaining absent from duties,
i.e., 17.5.1999. Counsel further submits that the said order dated 9.3.2009
was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but the
Appellate Authority vide orders dated 24.12.2009 has also dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner on untenable grounds. The learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that vide fresh Memorandum dated
30.12.2010 issued by the respondents they had modified the order dated
9.3.2009 by treating the period of absence of the petitioner from service i.e.
17.5.1999 to 3.9.2000 as dies non for all purposes and termination to
become effective from 4.9.2000.
The main grievance raised by petitioner is that the respondent has
taken more than ten years in taking a decision to remove the petitioner from
service that too without serving any show cause notice upon him and also
without taking into consideration the various letters/representations sent by
the petitioner requesting the respondents to permit him to join back on his
duties.
Dr. Puran Chand, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent on
advance notice.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused
the material on record.
Indisputably the petitioner remained absent from his duties w.e.f.
17.5.1999 to 25.9.2000 and thereafter also till 30.12.2010. Petitioner thus
remained absent for more than ten years and therefore the petitioner
remained absent from his duties unauthorizedly for such a long period with
no explanation to offer. To say that the petitioner kept on writing to
respondents or making certain representations, to request the respondents to
permit him for joining back to his duties can hardly be the reason which can
be accepted by the Court. If for any reasons the respondents was not
permitting the petitioner to join back on his duties then it was for the
petitioner to have taken legal recourse and not merely writing letters or
sending representations. The negligence and reckless conduct of the
petitioner in not joining back his duties for such a long period does not
entitle him to the grant of any relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
No doubt, there has been a delay at the end of the respondents in
taking a decision to remove the petitioner from service but looking into the
conduct of the petitioner himself, we do not attach much weightage to such a
lapse on behalf of the respondent.
We find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and there
is no ground to entertain the present petition therefore the same is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
pkb
