1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.910/2007 Suresh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors Date of order : 12.8.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. SS Jodha, for the petitioner Mr. Sudheer Tak, Dy. GA. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 2.2.1982. He was served with the charge-sheet on 9.4.1996 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958. The petitioner's contention is that by post he submitted his explanation and in proof thereof he placed on record the Photostat copy of the certificate of sending the post under certificate of posting (UPC) dated 11th July, 1997 and 21st July, 1997. The petitioner then stated that he came to know about ex-parte order regarding his removal from service. However, he did not disclose how and when he came to know about the order of his removal from service. Be it as it may be, the order which was passed ex-parte, the 2 petitioner preferred the appeal within limitation and without disclosing how he came to know about the order within such a short period so as to prefer the appeal within limitation. Be it as it may be, the petitioner, thereafter, contends that he approached the concerned authority for deciding the appeal and the appellate authority ultimately vide order dated 23rd March, 2006 informed that appellate authority had not received any appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of punishment. Then petitioner submitted a revision petition before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, which was dismissed vide order dated 20th July, 2006. The facts stated by the petitioner has foundation only on the basis of certificate of posting of his explanation dated 11th July, 1997 and 21st July, 1997 and for sending appeal by post, that too under certificate of posting. Firstly, the Photostat copies of these certificates cannot be believed and secondly these certificates only prove that petitioner may have dispatched two communications to the concerned authority and one appeal to the appellate authority, but it is not proof of reaching the communication to the concerned authority. When the concerned authority said in the year 3 2006 that no appeal has been received by the appellant authority and petitioner remained silent from 1997 to 2006 then the petitioner's contention cannot be believed merely because he could place on record the Photostat copies of the postal certificates certifying that some material may have been sent through these posts. I also perused the reply submitted by the respondents and it appears that petitioner already penalized 19 times before this punishment and rest of the facts have been denied by the respondents in reply. In view of the above reasons, there is several disputed questions of facts and the petitioner's conduct disentitles him from any relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed having no merit. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-