Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2013
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11899/2013
Raj Kumar Sharma vs Union of India
1
21
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11899/2013
Raj Kumar Sharma
vs
Union of India
DATE OF ORDER: 6th December 2013.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. MATHUR Mr. V.K. Sharma for the petitioner.
<><><> After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the order dated 25.02.2013, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT') has rejected an application seeking recall of the order dated 20.09.2011.
In this matter, relating to the penalty of removal from service, as imposed on the petitioner by the order dated 29.11.2005 essentially on the ground of inexcusable absenteeism, the CAT in the first place dealt with the OA (No. 19/2011) in its order dated 20.09.2011 and though was inclined to impose heavy costs on the petitioner but, looking to his status as an unemployed person, proceeded to grant the prayer for withdrawal and hence, dismissed the OA as withdrawn. The order dated 20.09.2011 reads as under:
"After hearing the matter for more than an hour, on the basis of being faced with the actual situation of Annex. A/3, which was issued by a Major in Field Formation Ammunition Depot C/o 56 A.P.O., and having nothing to do with the Air Force, the applicant capitulated, and sought for withdrawal of the OA. We were thinking of imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, but when it was brought to our notice that applicant is an unemployed man now and, is selling flowers near a Hanuman D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11899/2013 Raj Kumar Sharma vs Union of India 2 Temple, we were inclined to accept his request to withdraw this OA. The OA is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs."
The petitioner attempted to question the aforesaid order in a writ petition (CWP No. 2871/2012) which was considered and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 03.04.2012. This Court found nothing to interfere, particularly when by the impugned order, the petitioner was only permitted to withdraw showing that whatever was the cause for which the OA was filed before the CAT, was given up by the petitioner. This Court, however, made the observations that in case of grievance remaining yet, in relation to any other ground, the petitioner was at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and other applicable provisions.
Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the CAT seeking recall of the order dated 20.09.2011. The CAT, however, rejected the miscellaneous application moved on behalf of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 25.02.2013, which reads as under:
"This application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 readwith Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It appears from the order dated 20.09.2011 that the applicant himself opted to withdraw the OA. Therefore, the present MA filed by the applicant does not come under purview of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 or order 47 C.P.C.
Accordingly, the MA for recalling of the order of 20.09.2011 stands dismissed."
Thus, substance of the matter remains that by the order dated 20.09.2011, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw and the OA was dismissed as withdrawn by the CAT. The attempt on the part of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20.09.2011 failed with this Court declining to entertain the writ petition (CWP No.2871/2012) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11899/2013 Raj Kumar Sharma vs Union of India 3 on 03.04.2012. Further attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek re-opening of the order dated 20.09.2011 before the CAT has not been countenanced with the CAT finding nothing in the order calling for review more particularly when the petitioner-applicant himself opted to withdraw the OA as per the order dated 20.09.2011.
In the given backdrop of facts and events, we are unable to find any fault in the approach of the CAT when it has rejected the baseless miscellaneous application moved on behalf of the petitioner by its impugned order dated 25.02.2013. At any rate, no case of any illegality or jurisdictional error is made out so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(V.K. MATHUR), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. sudhir//-