1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 701 of 2008 CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. NITIN TRIVEDI for Mr. SN TRIVEDI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 1.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. In our view, the earlier challenge to the termination was accepted on the ground of the petitioner having been terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. May be that during trial of that matter the employer tried to show the reason for termination but then the question precisely required to be gone into by the learned Tribunal was about the validity of the termination on the anvil of non-compliance of Section 25F. It may be observed here that admittedly in those proceedings no finding was recorded by the learned Tribunal at initial stage about any departmental proceedings having 2 been wrongly taken or having not been taken or being initiated nor any opportunity was claimed by the employer under Section 11A to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal to establish delinquency of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, when the termination was quashed vide Annexure-1, mere fact that some stray observations have been made here or there in that judgment can not have the effect of depriving the employer of its right of serving any fresh charge-sheet on the employee. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet is much belated. It would suffice to say that the termination was challenged by the petitioner himself, which was set aside vide Annexure-1. Thereafter that judgment Annexure-1 was challenged in the Courts in hierarchy, and after the matter was finally decided by the Division Bench, the present charge-sheet has been served, and with this the petitioner has not raised the ground of delay before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Had it been so, ought we know, the Department would have furnished the explanation. In such circumstances, this ground of also cannot be sustained. Thus, we do not find any force in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/