Ramakrishna Dutta vs Union Of India And Ors.
2024 Latest Caselaw 6629 Del

Delhi High Court

Ramakrishna Dutta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 October, 2024

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

                  $~3
                  *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +         W.P.(C) 12357/2019, CM APPLs. 67323/2023, 67324/2023,
                            24445/2024 & 43806/2024 and REVIEW PET. 364/2023

                            RAMAKRISHNA DUTTA                               .....Petitioner
                                        Through:           Mr. Dinesh S Badiar

                                               versus

                            UNION OF INDIA AND ORS               .....Respondents
                                          Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with
                                          Mr. Farman Ali, Advs.

                  CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
                                              O R D E R (ORAL)

                  %                              04.10.2024

                  C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This is a review petition running into 151 pages, seeking review of a 32-page judgment of this Court. We have heard Mr. Badiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length. The contentions of which Mr. Badiar is seeking to advance have all been considered by the judgment under review.

2. The only substantial contention that Mr. Badiar could advance was that in the charge sheet dated 4 December 2014 for unauthorised absence of 878 days, 96 days have also been considered by the learned

Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation in OA 2777/2012.

3. OA 2777/2012 was not directed against any charge sheet or against any order passed in disciplinary proceedings. The only two charge sheets have been issued in this case are, therefore, of 4 July 2014 and 4 December 2014 for unauthorised absence of 878 days and 114 days. This aspect has been duly considered in para 55 of the judgment under review which has rejected the plea of double jeopardy.

4. The other submissions that Mr. Badiar seeks to advance would amount to a re-hearing of the petition which cannot be undertaken in review proceedings.

5. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

OCTOBER 4, 2024 ar Click here to check corrigendum, if any