1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.423/2006 Tareshwar Bohra vs. Union of India & ors. under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: February 10th, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Ranjeet Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bhati for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1333/1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.4.1999 by this Court after taking note of the fact that the petitioner's grievance was that his representation has not been decided to redress the petitioner's various grievances. This Court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation. This order was passed without notice to the respondent. However, the respondent, complying with the directions of 2 this Court dated 19.4.1999, vide order dated 4.8.1999 rejected the petitioner's representation. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the month of January, 2006 to challenge the order dated 4.8.1999, which is delayed by about more than 7-1/2 years. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer(Telecom) vide order dated 13.11.1985(Annex.1). He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer(Telecom) vide order dated 21.2.1990 (Annex.2). Then vide order dated 10.5.1995 (Annex.12), the petitioner has been transferred to the post of Assistant Engineer(Electronic & Telecom) at Ahmedabad. According to the petitioner, the petitioner who was appointed in the cadre of Engineer(Telecom) could not have been transferred and posted on the post of A.En.(E & T). The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was harassed by not making payment of salary on various occasions and, therefore, the petitioner submitted representations Annex. 6 and Annex.7 raising his grievances before the concerned authorities, wherein the petitioner also questioned the petitioner's transfer to the post of A.En.(E & T) and since 3 the petitioner's representations were not decided, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1333/1999 wherein direction was issued to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representations. Inspite of the petitioner's contention that he should not have been transferred on the post of A.En.(E & T), petitioner's contention is that he went to Ahmedabad to join his duties on the said post but the petitioner was not allowed to join on the post of A.En.(Telecom), therefore, obviously the petitioner did not join the duties. The petitioner also mentioned that he preferred another S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5470/05 before this Court seeking relief that the petitioner be allowed to discharge his duties on the post of S.E.(Telecom and TBG), Mandore, Jodhpur because the persons who were appointed along with the petitioner, have been promoted on the post of S.E., however the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file fresh writ petition to challenge the order dated 18.10.2005, by which the petitioner's deemed resignation has been accepted, obviously during pendency of the Writ Petition No.5470/05. 4 Be it as it may be. The petitioner is seeking relief of quashing of the order dated 4.8.1999 by which the petitioner's representation was rejected and seeking relief of consequential benefits of salary etc. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the order of acceptance of deemed resignation inspite of the fact that the petitioner in para no.15 stated that he withdrew the Writ Petition No. 5470/05 so as to challenge the acceptance of his resignation. The writ petition of the petitioner deserves to dismissed only on the ground that he did not choose to challenge the order of acceptance of deemed resignation dated 4.8.1999 passed under Rule 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Rules, 1995 and that order has attained the finality. So far as contention of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer(Telecom) vide order dated 13.11.1985 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer(Telecom) vide order dated 21.2.1990 are concerned, in the order dated 13.11.1985 itself, for the place of posting has been shown as “E & T” and same is the position in the order dated 21.2.1990. In spite of showing the petitioner as Junior Engineer(Telecom) and Assistant Engineer(Telecom), the 5 petitioner admittedly accepted his transfer to the Ahmedabad, which is clear from the petitioner's representation dated 5.2.1999 (Annex.6), wherein after questioning his transfer to the post of A.En.(E & T), stated that he went to Ahmedabad to join but he was not allowed to work on the post of A.E.(T). As per the petitioner himself, he sought relief in Writ Petition No.5470.05 that he may be allowed to discharge his duties on the post of S.E.(Telecom- TBG), Mandore, Jodhpur but that petition was withdrawn and the petitioner's services came to an end with acceptance of resignation, therefore, the petitioner had knowledge of deemed acceptance of his resignation. He sought permission to challenge that deemed acceptance of resignation of the petitioner but he did not choose to challenge that order and from the reasons mentioned in Annex.11 dated 4.11.1999, it appears that the petitioner was in habit of not attending the duties. However, that was not ground for removal of service. The non-petitioner's further contention is that he was suffering from some ailment of Schizophrenia and a Medical Board was constituted and he was advised to take 6 continuous treatment for two months. His wife also informed that the petitioner was not keeping good health. Court finds no merit in the contention that the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing and there should have been a departmental enquiry, because of the reason that that plea is not available to the petitioner as the petitioner has not been removed from service because of misconduct but has been removed from service on the ground of deemed acceptance of resignation under the Rules governing the petitioner's service and that order has not been challenged. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for th petitioner have no application to the facts of the case. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.