Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ram Niwas vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.1892/2008 New Delhi, this the 31st day of July, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Sh. Ram Niwas, S.I. No. D/3475, P.S. I.P.Estate, Central District, Delhi R/o H.No.1051, Pocket-B, MIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110094. Applicant (Present: None) VERSUS 1. Union of India & Ors. (Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs), North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Hd. Qtrs. I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
We had earlier disposed of this matter, vide order dated 02.09.2008, which read as follows:-
Challenge in the present OA is to order dated 13.7.2006 by which applicant was awarded the punishment of censure and also the appellate order dated 29.5.2007 by which applicants appeal was rejected.
2. The facts as may be gathered from the pleadings made in the Application would reveal that applicant was issued a show cause for his not appearing before Metropolitan Magistrate, Tihar Jail in case FIR No.346/04. The accused was, however, produced before the said court in FIR No.346/04 u/s 308/323/34 IPC PS Chandni Mahal. Applicant, despite number of opportunities given to him, did not respond to the show cause. That being so, notice was confirmed vide order dated 13.7.2006. In the appeal, all that was urged on behalf of the applicant was that he was on night duty and therefore, could not attend the court nor could produce the case file. The explanation furnished by the applicant was rejected by observing that the applicant should have gone to attend the court and that if he was not able to do so then he should have asked any other officer to be present in the court.
3. Prima facie it appears that the applicant had no plausible explanation to the show cause notice. However, as no one has chosen to appear in this case on the first call, the case was called for the second time at 11.45 a.m. None appeared on behalf of the applicant even on the second call. Original Application is dismissed in default.
2. Even though the merits of the case were touched, but ultimately the Original Application was dismissed in default on 02.09.2009, which order, on making an application for restoration, was, however, recalled on 21.11.2008 and the Original Application was restored to its original number. It is unfortunate that despite the background of the case, as given above, no one has chosen to appear in support of this Application even though the matter has been called on several occasions. It is 12.45 p.m. Dismissed in default.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/