HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIV!S!ON BENCH 'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. & 'BLE SHR! V.K. SHR!VASTAVA, J. WRIT PETiTION N0. 2384 OF 2001 Chetandeo, S/o Ghasia aged 57 years Ex-Loco Driver (S.E. Rajlway) R/o Badhivataia at and P.0. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon(Chhattisgarh) Versus iB";:^a Union of india, Through The Chief Generai iVlanager, S.E. Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta. The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway, 3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, S.E. Railway, Nagpur. 4. The Mechanical Engineer, S.E. Railway, Nagpur. 5. The Station Superintendent, S.E. Raiiway, Tumsar Road. 6. The Shed Foreman, LOCO, S.E. Railway, Tumsar Road, Through Shri Deepak Kumar Patil, Shed Foreman, S.E. Raiiway is presently working at Gondia (Maharashtra) 7. The Centra! Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur. Present : Shri Ratan Pusti, counsel for the petitioner. l"i:E;i!!t8;!iaSS S^~^ISai°SfS3 1 '^-S1KSS*W (Passed on 9tn March, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J. This petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, inter alia, calting in question the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Centrai Administrative Tribuna!, Jabaipur Bench, Jabaipur ("the Tribunai" for short) in OA.No.218/2001 dated 1-5- 2001. By the impugned order the Tribunal has rejected the application fited bv the employee of S.E. Raiiway ("Railwavs" for 2) The applicant before the Tribunal was an employee of the Railways. For the alleged acts of misconduct, the disciplinary authority of the Railways had issued a charge memo alongwith the statement of imputations, the list of documents and the iist of witnesses. The employee had replied to the charge memo. The discipiinary authority not being satisfied with the defence of the employee, had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. 3) The enquiry officer after ho!ding a detailed enquiry as required under the ruies of the Raiiways and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice, had come to the conclusion that the employee is guilty ofthe charges aileged in the charge memo. 4) The enquiry officer thereafter had submitted the enquiry report, the evidence recorded by him and the list of documents to the disciplinary authority. ^ V, ,,;£;(»? 5) The disciplinary authority after receipt of the aforesaid documents had issued second notice to the applicant to show cause why the report of the enquiry officer should not be accepted by it and thereafter impose appropriate punishment as envisaged under the rules. 6) The disciplinary authority after considering the representation filed by the employee pursuant to the show cause notice issued, had accepted the report of the enquiry ofRcer and had proceeded to impose a major penalty of dismissal from servi'ce by its order dated 6-2-1993. 7) For the first time, the employee had presented an original application bsfore the Tribunal in the year 2001. Along with the appiication, he had aiso filed an application for condonation of delay, if any, in filirig the application. 8) The Tribunal, by its impugned order has rejectsd the appiication on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appiicant in approaching the Tribunat. Further, the Tribuna! has adverted to the merits of the case and has come to the conclusion that the appiicant had failed to di'scharge the burden of proving the so eailed procedural irregularitiss said to have been committed by the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal being the final authority has found that there is no irreguiarity. As such, we do not intend to interfere with the opinion of She Tribuna! on the question of facts. L.. 9) ln so far as the delay part is concerned, the Tribunai in its lengthy order has observed that the appiicant had filed an application for condonation of delay 'm preferring the appllcation without assigning satisfactory explanation. Therefore, the Tribunai has come to the conclusion that the deiay in filing the application is not justifiabie. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned counse! for the petitioner would submit that immediateiy after the orders passed by the disdplinary authority, the petitioner was making repeated representations before the superior forum and it is because of that the appiicant couid not approach the Tribunai within a reasonable time. Time and again, the Apex Court observed that mere filing of repeated representations would not cure the delay before the Tribunals. In view of the above, the submission made by learned counse! for the petitioner cannot be accepted by us. Learned counsel also re!ies upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of G.P. Doval and others vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1527. That was a case rendered by She Apex Court while considering the ptea of the petitioners with regard to the seniority. The concept explained by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, in our opinion, cannot bs applied to the facts and circumstances of ths present case. The employee, who was suffering the order of dismissal from service and wants redressal of his grievance, shouid approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. 10) In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petttioner on thegroundofdelayandlaches. i 11) In view of the above, we do not want to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected without notice to the respondents. Ordered accordingiy. ir Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/f- V.K.Shrivastava Judge SKS^'