- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal against the order dated 21.05.2008 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.3128/2008 was filed on 22.09.2012 and the office has reported it to be time-barred by 1517 days. The other defects have also been pointed out by the Office. However, having regard to the circumstances, we have ignored the other defects. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to interfere in this intra-court appeal. A casual and cursory suggestion has been made in the application (Civil Misc. Application No.50/2012) about the reasons for delay "that the appellant due to unavoidable circumstances could not approach his counsel and thus the present delay occurred." Such a suggestion could hardly be taken sufficient for condonation of inordinate delay of over 4 years.
(2.) WE have yet put a glance over the merits of the case too and find absolutely no case for interference. The appellant had been proceeded in departmental inquiry by his employer and was ordered to be removed from service, essentially on the ground of unauthorized absence. The challenge as made by the appellant to the inquiry proceedings and the punishment imposed led to a reference to the Central Administrative Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur who, in its award dated 12.04.2005, found some shortcomings in the inquiry proceedings and hence, examined the matter on merits while permitting the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, the Tribunal examined the entire record and found no case for interference and made the award in favour of the employer. The attempt on the part of the petitioner to challenge the award so made also failed with the learned Single Judge of this Court finding no ground for interference with the observations, inter alia, as under: - "I do not find any substance in the argument advanced as the labour court by the order dated 4.10.2004 held the inquiry unfair and allowed the parties to adduce the evidence. Error or irregularity in the domestic inquiry therefore is of no consequence. No error is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the inquiry conducted before the labour court, as such, the order impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India."
(3.) IN the totality of the circumstances, where the case has consistently been found to be of unauthorized absence from duty from 24.04.1997 onwards, the respondents could not have been faulted in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and in passing the punishment order removing the appellant from service. The appeal remains bereft of substance and is, therefore, dismissed.;