Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann. 2 dated 15th May, 1998 passed by disciplinary authority after holding inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, charge Nos. 1 & 3 have been found proved against him and holding him to be a habitual absentee, the disciplinary authority affirmed its earlier order dated 22nd April, 1988 by which he was removed from service.
(2.) PETITIONER joined service as Constable in 1976. For delinquency committed by him, he was placed under suspension on contemplation of inquiry vide order dated 10th August, 1986 and charge -sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was served upon him dated 29th May, 1987. In all there were three charges levelled against petitioner, of which reference has been made by disciplinary authority in his order Ann.2. Extract of charge nos.1 & 3, which are relevant, are reproduced as under: vkjksi ua0 1% vki Jh jkepUnz dkfu0 132 o"kZ 1986 esa dkfu0 ds in ij iqfyl Fkkuk Qrsgiqj ij rSukr Fks A fnukad 2@7@86 dks vki Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk eatwj 'kqnk vodk'k ij jokuk gq, ,oa le; ij mifLFkr u gksdj xSj gkftj gks x;s A ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]... After the charge sheet was served, a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was held against him. The disciplinary authority holding petitioner guilty for charge Nos. 1 & 3, finally punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 2nd April, 1988. Against said order of penalty inflicted upon him, departmental appeal was preferred which was dismissed by a detailed order on 27th July, 1990. Against which review petition was preferred before His Excellency. The Governor under Rule 34 of Rules which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to disciplinary authority to first supply copy of inquiry report as provided under Rule 16(12) of the Rules and proceed after affording opportunity of hearing afresh in accordance with law. It appears that earlier petitioner preferred C.W. No. 5168/95 which was disposed of on 27th February, 1998 directing the respondents to supply him copy of inquiry report and after affording opportunity pass fresh order in accordance with law. In compliance of the order of reviewing authority and so also of this Court referred to supra, respondents served a copy of inquiry report on 30th March, 1998 and his written explanation was called for and after affording opportunity to petitioner, disciplinary authority held the charge Nos. 1 & 3 proved against him and finally upheld his earlier order of removal from service dt. 2nd April, 1988.
(3.) HOWEVER , in ordinary course the order impugned in the instant petition was to be challenged in appeal before the disciplinary authority as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules. But, it appears from the record that in the year 1988 first order was passed by the disciplinary authority and after going through the complete procedure on filing appeal/review subsequent order was passed by the disciplinary authority in 1998 and on 23/7/99 notices were issued by this Court, reply has been filed, but no such objection was raised. In such circumstances, if in 2008 if it is sent to the appellate authority after 20 years it will not be appropriate and thus, considers to hear the petition on merits.;