IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.14250 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 08, 2011. Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Harindar Kumar Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 29.1.2010 and 27.1.2011 (Annexures P-13 & P-15, respectively) passed by the Deputy Inspector General/EZ and the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, dismissing his appeal and revision in a departmental matter being hopelessly time barred. The petitioner was a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') and was posted at FCI Wing, Talcher in Orissa at the relevant time. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure P-1), inter-alia, alleging that (i) he left his rifle unattended on 1.5.2001 and when Inspector S.K.Mishra sought his explanation, the CWP No.14250 of 2011 [2] petitioner misbehaved with the Inspector; (ii) he was assigned temporary duty on 18.4.2001 but the petitioner intentionally reported at his parent wing on 19.4.2001 after completion of the inspection carried out by the Group Commandant; (iii) the petitioner compelled a fellow Constable to write a complaint against Inspector S.K.Mishra and (iv) that he was proved to be indisciplined constable who had already been awarded two major and six minor punishments by the different disciplinary authorities. When the disciplinary proceedings were at the verge of completion and the petitioner was to produce two constables in his defence evidence, an FIR No.154/2002 under Sections 457 and 376 IPC was registered against him on 13.3.2002 at Police Station Vikrampur, alleging that the petitioner alongwith one Ram Binod Kumar entered the house of the complainant and raped his elder daughter by gagging her mouth. The petitioner was arrested and it appears that the departmental enquiry was concluded and the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service while he was in custody in the rape case. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 19.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher, acquitting him of the rape charges after observing that the victim was above 16 years of age i.e., about 17 years old and that she was a consenting party as the petitioner had promised her to 'marry'. It could not be disputed by his learned counsel that the petitioner was already a married person. Be that as it may, it is not expedient for this Court to comment on the afore-stated judgment which is CWP No.14250 of 2011 [3] stated to have attained finality. The admitted fact is that the order of removal from service was duly conveyed to the petitioner on 29.4.2002 while he was in jail in the 'rape case' and there is no rhyme or reason for him not to prefer the departmental appeal. The petitioner is said to have preferred the departmental appeal on 11.7.2009 (Annexure P-9) followed by a representation dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-10), inter-alia, on the plea that it was after his acquittal in the criminal case when he reported to the CISF authorities that he came to know about his removal from service. The petitioner's plea that he had no 'knowledge' of the order removing him from service or that he could not submit the departmental appeal in time, has been turned down by the Appellate Authority after observing as follows:- “.....The plea so put forth by the appellant does not carry any merit precisely for the basic reason that a copy of the order of punishment was sent to be served upon him on 29.4.2002 through a special representative and by that time, he was under judicial custody at Special Sub Jail, Talcher. He was called upon by the Superintendent of Sub Jail in his chamber and he was asked to receive a copy of the final order, which he refused to receive in the presence of the Superintendent of Sub Jail as well the representative of the force, i.e., Inspr/Exe A.R.Das and in the given circumstances, the contents of the said final order was read over the appellant, which is evident from the record. It is settled position of law that refusal to accept any official communication/letter itself amounts to service of the same. Thus, taking the plea CWP No.14250 of 2011 [4] that he was unaware about the impugned penalty and only came to know recently when he submitted an appeal petition dated 11.7.2009 to DG/CISF, is ridiculous and purely after thought. As a matter of fact, the appellant has not present any plausible ground for not preferring his appeal petition within the stipulated period of time. Not only this, even after having been acquitted from the alleged criminal case, which indeed, has nothing to do with the instant departmental proceedings as well as the impugned penalty, the appellant had sufficient time to submit his appeal petition, but despite which, he did not show any interest in doing so. Even it is evident from the record that the criminal case against the appellant was finally disposed of, by the court on 19.2.2009, he could have filed his appeal petition soo after final disposal of such case.....” The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2011 being time barred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. This Court would have ordinarily impressed upon the departmental authorities to decide the appeal/revision petitions preferred by the petitioner on merits. However, I do not find it a fit case to exercise the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for more than one reasons. The averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition are selective in nature and it is not discernible as to whether he remained in custody throughout the trial in 'rape case' or was released on bail during the CWP No.14250 of 2011 [5] interregnum. He has also taken various other pleas like that he remained 'mentally disturb' and has filed the appeal after seven years. It could also not be disputed that while in service the petitioner was found guilty of gross misconducts for more than one occasions which led to imposition of major and minor penalties. In the totality of circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned orders. Dismissed. August 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE