* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 925 OF 2007
Date of Pronouncement: July 13, 2011
M.L.Kararwal
..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 20.12.2006
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, in O.A. No. 1438/2006 titled as M.L. Kararwal vs. Union of India
through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, dismissing the original
application filed by the petitioner wherein he had sought quashing
and setting aside of order dated 16.01.2006 and 6.7.2006
compulsorily retiring him from service.
WP(C) No.925 of 2007 Page 1 of 3
2. An enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was
conducted by Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, who gave a
report dated 8.1.1992 holding that no charges were made out against
the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, while exercising
power under Rule 15(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules permitted the case for de
novo enquiry and appointed another enquiry officer. The second
enquiry officer also gave a finding that no charges were made out in
his report dated 26.06.1997.
3. The disciplinary authority, however, diferred with the
enquiry report dated 26.06.1997 and imposed the penalty of
compulsory retirement by order dated 4.7.2000. The order of
compulsory retirement imposed by order dated 4.7.2000 was the
subject matter of various proceedings initiated on behalf of the
petitioner. Pursuant to which, an order dated 4.4.2003 was passed
conveying the reasons for disagreement by Disciplinary Authority with
the findings of the enquiry officer.
4. The Tribunal while considering the pleas and contentions
of the parties has noted categorically that the appellate authority had
taken note of the advice of UPSC who had come to the conclusion that
the evidence available on record was sufficient to conclude that the
petitioner had entered into a marriage with Ms. Rewa, during the life
time of his legally married wife and thus, had held that the charge
under Article 1 framed against the petitioner was proved.
WP(C) No.925 of 2007 Page 2 of 3
5. The Tribunal while considering the pleas and contentions
of the parties have relied and considered the various precedents
referred to by the parties. Taking all the facts and circumstances into
consideration, the Tribunal has held that the respondents have
correctly proceeded in the matter and concurred with the
disagreement note to the enquiry report dated 26.06.1997 and thus
declined to interfere with the decision of the respondents.
6. No one is present on behalf of the parties.
7. No one had been present on behalf of the parties even on
8.7.2011, however, no adverse order was passed on that date in the
interest of justice.
8. Since no one is present on behalf of the parties, this Court
is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the writ petition in
default of non-appearance of the parties.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 13, 2011
rd
WP(C) No.925 of 2007 Page 3 of 3