Dismissing the writ petition, this court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding that the petitioner's application for quashing dismissal was time-barred, noting that the petitioner's absence from duty post-dismissal negated any issue regarding service of notice.
null
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5987 of 2015
=========================================================== Gopal Rai, Son of Late Ram Bilas Rai, Resident of village Keshawpur, P.O. Dolil (Sakara), P.S.- Doli (Sakara), District-Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 21-06-2016
The order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid order, an Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal on 23.07.2007 was found to be suffered from vice of limitation.
The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal was not served upon the petitioner, therefore, there cannot be any delay in challenging the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5987 of 2015 dt.21-06-2016
2/2
order of dismissal.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. The services of the petitioner were dismissed for the reason that he remained absent in the years 2004-05. A show cause notice was served on 16.07.2005. It is thereafter an order of dismissal was passed. Since the petitioner was absent from duty, therefore, the actual service of the order of dismissal is not relevant as in any case the petitioner was abstaining from duty. Had the petitioner vigilant, he would have reported for duty in the year 2004 or 2005 or any time after the order of dismissal was passed. Since he never reported for duty all these years, therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the Original Application filed by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Sujit/P.Kumar
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal orders filed by the absent employee was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.
Gopal Rai
The Union of India
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
