«ra RR. '....£/f?;^ Presented^ Sh^K-^^^'^^ ^- c( ^ INTHE HIGH COURTOFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (S) No.^'/S-7-/2Q06 PETmONER •», RESPONDENTS .S> ^i. ?s~^/ ^yy ,-i^:f5' -Disiram, S/o Shri Jhaduram, Aged about 44 years, R/o - Near Old Jai Stambh, Bhadarapara, Batco Nagar, Korba, Distt. -Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^•V. The Director (Karmik/Sayantra) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., Balco, Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 2. The Sub-Director (Karmik) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., Balco, Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 3. The Chief Managing Director (Karmik/Prashasan) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., Balco, Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 4. The Investigation Officer, <•'' Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., Balco, Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'Ks&^Swfssyff. s^^^^^^^%?w HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P, (S) No. 5157 of 2006 Petitioner Disirain Versus Respondcnts The Director {Karmik/Sayantra) Bharat Aluixuaium Co.Ltd. & others Sinig^e Beach ; Honlale Mr, Justfce Satisli K. Agaihotri. Shri Bhaiat Rajput, Advocate for fhe petitioncr. ORDER (21s* September, 2006) 1. The petitioner has f3ed this petitk>n chaUenging fhe validity of the inupugaed order dated 8.10. 1993, wheieby fhe services of fhe petitioner has been terminated after fiiB fledged departmental enquiry. 2. TIie eontentron of leamcd counsel for the petitioner is that fhe petitioner was not afforded due opportunity of heariag in the departiaental cnquuy to defend his case aad the departiBental enquiry was conducted without issiung proper show cause notice. 3. lt is clear froui a perusal of fhe inipugned order dated 8.10.1993 fhat for certaui aUegation of iuisconduct,chai^e sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.9.1992. When the concemed authorily was not satisficd wifh fhe repty of the petitioner fhen proper departmental enquuy was held and fhe petitioner was given due opportunities to partk'ipate in the enquuy but siace the petitioner absented himself, therefore, the departmeatal enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The chai^es leveUed against the petitioner were foiind proved in tbe departmental eaquiiy and in accordance with the provision ofSection 30(1) offhe Standing Orders the petitioner was teniunated froin service on 8.10.1993 (Annexure P/14). yst9S3SsssssswxiSss' ^x ^1 4. The petitioaerhas filed ttus petition on 18.9.2006 i.e. afterdelay ofabout 13 years fi-om the date of the passmg of fhe iiupugned termination onler dated 8.10.1993. No sufficient cause has been shown by fhe petitioner for such a long delay. 5. It is well settled priuciple of law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court m fhc cases of Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. TheState ofBihar and others1. P. S. Sadasivaswami Vs. State of Tauul Nadu2 and Kamataka Power CorDoration Ltd, & Anr. Vs. V, K. Thangappan & Aur.3 that repeated representations caanot justify a belated approach to fhe Coiirts. Entertaining belated approach would luisettle the setfled inaters, and the saiue should be avoHled. 6. Looking £rom aB angles, theic is no merit ia this case and as a result, ttiis petition deseryes to be and is dismissed accordiagly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri if(1973) 1 SCC811),2<l(1975) 1 SCC 152}, ^ {2006 AIRSCW 1828) •Biskur -?TC)^