IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14778 of 2010 ==================================================== 1.KAPILDEO PRASAD, Son of Late Prasadi Mahto, R/o Kisanpur, P.O.- Kisanpur, PS.-Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura, Ex.Work Sarkar Grade –II, Central Water Commission, Budhi Gandak Upmandal, Muzaffarpur ,Div.Madhya Ganga Mandal-IV, Rajendra Nagar,Patna-800016—Applicant before the Tribunal---------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Director(Administration),Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 2.Director(Prabodan)-cum-Superintendent Engineer (H.O.C.)Prabodhan Nideshalaya, Central Water Commission, Patna. 3.Chief Engineer, Lower Ganga Basin Union, Central Water Commission, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna. 4.Superintendent Engineer,(Coordination)Office of Chief Engineer, Lower Ganga Basin Union, Central Water Commission, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna. 5.Deputy Director –cum- Executive Engineer, Central Water Commission, Madhya Ganga, Mandal-IV, Rajendra Nagar, Patna -800016. 6.Assistant Executive Engineer, Budhi Gandak Upmandal,Central Water Commission, Muzaffarpur-----Respondents before the Tribunal---Respondents. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. ASHOK KUMAR For the Respondent/s: Mr. RAGHIB AHSAN(ASST.SG) ==================================================== ------------- 13. 27.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench(D.B.),Patna dismissing his 2 O.A.No.426 of 2010 on the ground of the bar of limitation. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal has not considered the explanation for delay as given by him in the condonation petition (M.A.No. 250 of 2010) in filing the O.A.No. 426 of 2010 and has wrongly dismissed his case on the technical ground of limitation. It has been further submitted that in view of the prolonged mental illness suffered by the petitioner, the Tribunal should have taken a liberal view of the matter and should have considered his case on merits after condoning the delay. The reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on a decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 1313 for the submission that an order of dismissal can be effective only after its communication to the employee concerned or otherwise published. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been submitted that the writ petitioner, after confirmation of his service, had developed the habit of absenting himself without leave/permission. It has been pointed out that in the year 1998 the petitioner became absent from duty from 09.11.1998 and thereafter he never joined his duty nor made an application for leave. It is 3 the case of the respondents that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which remained unanswered and thereafter the notice for initiation of proceeding against the petitioner for his dismissal from service due to unauthorized absence from the place of posting was also issued but no reply was submitted. Consequently the order dated 11.01.2007 was passed terminating the service of writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the writ petitioner had failed to explain the long delay in filing the O.A.No. 426 of 2010 and statements made in condonation petition (M.ANo.250 of 2010) do not disclose sufficient cause for codonation of delay. We have perused the records of the case. In the petition for condonation of delay (M.A.No. 250 of 2010) which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure- 6, the petitioner has admitted that he had recovered from his metal illness on 30.11.2008 and got the knowledge of the order of termination of his service soon thereafter. The writ petitioner has also admitted to have filed representation on 24.03.2009 claiming retiral benefits and after receiving only the G.P.F. amount in this regard he filed another representation on 16.03.2010 for the retiral benefits for the 4 payment of his retiral benefits .There is absolutely no explanation for the delay in filing the O.A.No.426 of 2010 before the Tribunal which appears to have been filed on 02.06.2010 much after the filing of the first representation dated 24.03.2009 by the petitioner. In view of the petitioner's own case of getting the knowledge of the termination order on 30.11.2008 or soon thereafter the petitioner was required to explain the delay in filing the O.A.No. 426 of 2010 which was filed on 02.06.2010. The Tribunal had no other way but to uphold the objection regarding the bar of limitation. The reliance placed upon the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 131, in the facts and circumstances of the case is misplaced. We do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Nitesh (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (V.Nath, J.)