Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6255/2005 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6255 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4.
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
BRIJ
MOHAN B. - Petitioner
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
GR MALHOTRA WITH MR OM PRAKASH KHURANA for Petitioner.
RULE SERVED
for Respondent No. 1.
MR RAVI KARNAVAT for Respondent No. 2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
We
have heard Mr. Om Prakash Khurana, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ravi Karnavat, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
This
writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2001
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.275 of 2000
with M.A. No.224 of 2000 and also the order dated 13.03.2002 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in R.A. No.10 of 2002 in O.A.
No.275 of 2000.
The
petitioner was working as Class IV employee. He was removed from
service by the respondent No.2 by order dated 28.06.1993.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed departmental appeal which was also
dismissed on 30.09.1993.
Thereafter,
the petitioner kept quiet. According to the petitioner, the order
of Appellate Authority dated 30.09.1993 was not communicated to the
petitioner and the order was given to him only in the year 1996.
Why the petitioner did not approach the Appellate Authority is not
clear from the writ petition. Once, the petitioner had filed an
appeal, he was required to inquire from the Appellate Authority
about the result of the appeal by writing letter.
Against
the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed O.A.
No.275 of 2000. Since there was delay, the petitioner also filed
M.A. No.224 of 2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide order
dated 17.09.2001 dismissed the said application on the ground of
delay. The reason given by the Tribunal in paragraphs 3 to 7 is
extracted below :-
“3. Except
this contention that he was sick, the applicant has not produced any
documentary evidence that he had remained continuously sick till the
date of filing of this OA. It may be that he was not well in 1992-93
but there is no explanation about the subsequent period. So far as
the illiteracy of the applicant is concerned, the same is not a
ground for condoning delay of about seven years. The applicant had
preferred an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority
and hence it can easily be inferred that he had knowledge of seeking
for the redressed in the Tribunal.
4. We also find
that the applicant at the time of contesting the disciplinary
proceedings had accepted the charges leveled against him and had also
admitted that he had not informed his SS about the treatment under
private doctor and hence the disciplinary authority had passed the
order of dismissal from the services.
5. However, at
this juncture, Mr. Khurana denies that he had admitted the charges
leveled against him by saying that the statement was recorded by the
SS and the same was in English and not in Hindi language. The
applicant being a illiterate person, could not understand the text of
the same nor he was explained the text of the same, but he was given
assurance by the AWM that the charges would be dropped without any
further action and hence the applicant had signed the statement.
6. Mr. Khurana
has submitted that without applying his mind, the applicant had
admitted the charges under duress, but there is nothing to support
this version. Even before the Appellate Authority, the applicant had
not contested that he had admitted charges under duress. It was the
first opportunity for the applicant to come out with his case but he
had not done so. Thereafter, the applicant had not represented
anywhere that he was made to admit the charge compulsion. Under the
circumstances, the argument advanced by Mr. Khurana cannot be
accepted.
7. We therefore
find that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay and
therefore we reject the MA for condonation of delay. Consequently,
the OA also stands rejected as barred by limitation.”
Against
that order, the petitioner filed Review Application No.10 of 2002
before the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be rejected
by order dated 13.03.2002.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner Mr. Om Prakash Khurana has vehemently
urged that the impugned removal order was passed without affording
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The
petitioner filed O.A. after unreasonable delay without annexing any
material and without explaining the reason for delay in filing O.A.
Even he did not file any documentary evidence to show that he was
sick during the said period. From the medical certificates on
record, it appears that the petitioner was suffering from Chronic
Inflamatory Bowel Disease, which is not a serious disease.
However,
without entering into the merits of the matter, we find that the
Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the O.A. As
the Tribunal found that there was no sufficient cause for condoning
the delay. We do not find any illegality in the impugned orders of
the Tribunal. This writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
Savariya
Top