293wp638.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 638 of 2011 (Shri Sukaram Muka Deshkar .vs. Union of India and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 29/03/2011. Heard Mr. A.B.Bambal, Adv. for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dt. 12.4.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal passed by the Department came to be dismissed. At the outset, we must express that the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal in the year 2005. However, considering the reasons given by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the petition, we do not want to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches and therefore, the matter is heard on merits. Considered the contentions 293wp638.11.odt 2 . canvassed by the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that, in spite of ample opportunity given to the petitioner to defend his claim before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not take part in the enquiry for the reasons best known to him and therefore, the enquiry was carried out ex-parte. The reasons given by the Tribunal in para 14 of the impugned order are as under : “ We have mentioned that the Enquiry Officer had given repeated opportunity to the applicant by sending the registered letters to put up his appearance and adduce the defence. It is also apparent that the Enquiry Officer had sent the copies of the proceedings by registered post to the applicant. But the applicant remained absent every time. The Enquiry Officer was forced to examine the witnesses ex-parte and finally gave his findings holding him guilty. The applicant declined to participate in the enquiry despite several notices were given to him. The attitude of the applicant was complete non co- operation. The Enquiry Officer had no other alternative but to proceed ex-parte 293wp638.11.odt 3 . against the applicant. It has also come on the record that after setting aside the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 19.8.1998 and the appellate authority's order dated 30.9.1989 by the Tribunal in OA 277/01 the applicant was given a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report to make representation against the Enquiry Officer. It is also apparent that the applicant had submitted his representation against the Enquiry Officer's report to disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after considering the representation of the applicant imposed the penalty of removal by order dated 25.6.1992 which was confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 3.2.1995. The order of the appellate authority dated 3.2.1995 was quashed and set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 12.6.2000 in O.A.252/1996 with the direction to consider all the grounds taken by the applicant in the appeal and pass detailed, reasoned order within two months. It is also apparent that the appellate authority had passed the reasoned order and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 3.2.1995. It is also 293wp638.11.odt 4 . apparent that the order of the appellate authority dated 3.2.1995 was challenged by the applicant in O.A.2220/01 and the same was set aside on the ground of personal hearing to the applicant. The appellate authority was directed to grant him personal hearing. The appellate authority by giving personal hearing to the applicant after taking into consideration of the ground taken by the applicant in his appeal, passed speaking and reasoned order as per direction of the Tribunal on 19.7.2004. “ The above referred findings recorded by the tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, are just and proper, sustainable in law and need no interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais