Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was appointed as L.D.C. in the District Court, Balotra on compassionate basis in place of his father on 24.4.2003, has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 7.12.2004 (Annex.3), passed by the petitioner's disciplinary authority - District & Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, terminating him from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty; the order dated 13.11.2006 (Annex.6) passed by the appellate authority - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 7.12.2004; and the order dated 26.4.2007 (Annex.7), whereby the review petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty, is unjust, arbitrary and illegal and was passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. She vehemently contended that the petitioner was not provided any appropriate authority of defending himself at all because the notices sent to the petitioner for resuming duty were never served on him. She contended that the petitioner was seriously ill and was not available at his residence and thus, he could not respond to the notices. She heavily relied upon some medical prescriptions in support of her contentions and urged that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner deserves to be provided an opportunity of defending himself so that he can prove that his absence from duty was bonafide, caused by a severe ailment and thus, he was prevented from attending duty for reasons beyond his control. She thus prayed that the writ petition deserved acceptance.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He urged that the medical certificates on which the petitioner relies upon are of no avail whatsoever. The order Annex.3 dated 7.12.2004 was passed after giving numerous notices and opportunities to the petitioner but he deliberately failed to respond thereto, upon which the disciplinary authority was left with no option but to pass the order removing him from service on the ground of long and unauthorized absence from duty. He further contended that the appellate authority examined the entire record and adverted to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and thereafter, the order of removal from service was affirmed by a well reasoned detailed order. He further contended that the petitioner after a delay of 15 months, challenged the order Annex.3 dated 7.12.2004, whereby he was removed from service. The delay was totally unexplained. He further submitted that even after the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and review, the instant writ petition was preferred with a delay of more than 3 years and, therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was not at all interested in the job and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.;