- (1.) HEARD the learned coun sel for the appellant and the learned State Counsel.
(2.) THE writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service filed by the appellant (petitioner) was dismissed in default vide order dated 1-10-1997. THE restoration appli cation filed by the appellant (petitioner) was also rejected vide order dated 10-1-2000. THEreafter again an application for restoration was moved by the petitioner (appellant) which was again dismissed on 29-1-2002. The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal from service but to his ill luck his case has been closed without even hearing his grievance. The lawyer whom he engaged died which information he could not get and the matter in the meantime was listed before the Court where it met its fate. The restoration applications were also rejected twice. The learned single Judge found that there was no good ground for restoration of the case. In our opinion opportunity of hearing should not normally be shut to the person who approaches the High Court for ventilating his grievance against any action or order passed by the Government or any other authority, unless of course, there are very cogent rea sons which may be exceptional in circum stances to deprive a litigant to have his say on merits in the High Court.
(3.) FOR the fault of the lawyer, if a case is not prosecuted diligently and is dismissed in default, the litigant cannot be subjected to any punishment as he is not supposed to be present on every hearing nor there is any mechanism to intimate him about the date fixed and that too well in advance so that he may make ar rangement to come to the Court, if he is liv ing in a far away district or even otherwise if he has to make arrangement to come to the Court. In a case where lawyer has died, natu rally the information is sent by the office of the lawyers or by the Court also but still, there may be cases where such information does not actually reach to the litigant and there fore, when he approaches the Court, a lenient view ought to be taken so as not to deprive the litigant his right of remedy before the Court. Of course, if it is found that there are reasons which do not permit such a lenient attitude necessary orders are accordingly to be passed but this should be done in rare cases. A person who has come to the Court against dismissal from service cannot be al lowed to go from the High Court without looking into the grievance and distress that he is facing because of dismissal from ser vice. The Court would be justified in dismiss ing the case in default if lawyers do not appear and the petitioner is not also present but when an application for restoration is moved, there would be little justification for not re storing the petition to its original number and not affording opportunity of hearing to the litigant.;