The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's original application. The Court found that the writ petition lacked merit due to the petitioner's delay in availing statutory remedies and pursuing disciplinary proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +** WP(C) 4835/2015
RAM KUMAR …Petitioner
Through : Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS …Respondents Through :
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Page 1 of 5
WP(C) 4835/2015
Page 2 of 5
WP(C) 4835/2015
neither letter dated 14th October, 2004 nor any application or letters seeking leave had been received by them. The UPC receipts, we observe and hold, are rather debatable. The medical certificates of the wife relied by the petitioner were issued by private doctors in Agra and Aligarh and are dated 30th September, 2004, 5th October, 2004 and relate to subsequent visits on 10th December, 2004 and 11th February, 2005. There is also a certificate of a doctor at Aligarh that the petitioner’s wife was under her treatment for vertigo from 5th October, 2004 till the date of the said certificate, i.e., 2nd March, 2005. These certificates do not pertain to the period July, 2003 to August, 2004.
Page 3 of 5
WP(C) 4835/2015
per the petitioner, was followed by another letter dated 15th June, 2005.
Page 4 of 5
WP(C) 4835/2015
8. Impugned order of the Tribunal records that the petitioner’s Original Application was dismissed in default on 2nd May, 2012. After nearly two years, an application of restoration was filed on 4th March, 2014 and the same was allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner did not avail of his right to challenge the order of the appellate authority by way of revision as provided by the statute, i.e., Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The petitioner had directly approached the Tribunal without availing the said remedy.
9. Looking from all angles, we find that the writ petition has no merit and there is no reason and ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30th July, 2014 passed by the Tribunal dismissing OA No. 2810/2011. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE
(NAJMI WAZIRI) JUDGE
February 26, 2016 Ssn/VKR
Page 5 of 5
WP(C) 4835/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's original application.
Whether the writ petition has any merit given the petitioner's delay and procedural history.
Ram Kumar
Union of India
Sanjiv Khanna
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
