1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2010 Narayan Dudha Charniya .. Petitioner. v/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondents. .... Mr. A. K. Tripathi i/b. Mr. Shailesh S. Shukla for the Petitioner. Ms. Trupti Puranik for Respondent-BMC. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2010. P.C. By this Writ Petition the Petitioner after more than seven years has for the first time, challenged an order dated 13th September, 2002 passed by the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dismissing the Petitioner who worked as a Halalkhor forth class employee in the service of Respondent Corporation. The said order was passed, since the Petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for 18 months i.e. from 17th April, 2000 to 23rd October, 2001 without any prior intimation or without submitting application for leave or without seeking any permission from competent authority. 2 2. Pursuant to a preliminary enquiry, the above act on the part of the Petitioner was prima facie treated as an act of serious misconduct and therefore by an order dated 3rd July, 2001 vide No. DCE/SWM/2828/ES, the Deputy Chief Engineer (S.W.M.), Eastern Suburbans of the Respondent Corporation ordered a departmental enquiry. Accordingly, on 19th July, 2001 charge sheet "A" vide No. EO/ZONE-5/DCS/1392 dated 18th July, 2001 was served on the Petitioner and a departmental enquiry was held on 6th August, 2001. As the petitioner did not remain present for enquiry, the enquiry proceedings were conducted in his absence, but in the presence of the witnesses of the Respondent Corporation. The charge leveled against the Petitioner was proved and therefore on 4th July, 2002, vide CE/SWM/16420/DE-1257, the Chief Engineer (S.W.M.) recommended that the Petitioner should be dismissed from the service of the corporation and his unauthorised absence from 17th April, 2000 to 23rd October, 2001 be treated as "Absence without leave". 3. The Petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice vide No. AO/16420/SMW/DE-1257 on 4th July, 2002 3 by hand delivery. The Petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice within a stipulated period. After considering all the facts of the case, the Chief Engineer (S.M.W.) on 22nd August, 2002 vide No. CE/7207/SMW/DE-1367 confirmed the punishment mentioned in the show cause notice and dismissed the Petitioner from Municipal services on the ground of his continuous unauthorized absence from 17th April, 2000 to 23rd October, 2001. 4. Though, the Petitioner had received the order of dismissal, he did not impugn the same before the Competent Authority/Labour Court. Though the Petitioner suffers from gross latches not a word is mentioned in the writ petition why the Competent Authority/Labour Court was not approached or why this Court is directly approached after more than seven years. The question of entertaining the present writ petition therefore does not arise and the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]