JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The application for restoration, application for condonation of delay and the writ petition have been taken up for consideration together.

2. Since the writ petition itself was taken up for consideration and extensively heard, I am of the view that the writ petition should be disposed of on merits. Having regard to the above and having heard the learned advocates and having considered the explanation given by the petitioner, the delay in filing the restoration application praying for recall of the order dated 11th April, 2016, is condoned and upon being satisfied that the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the reasons for non-appearance on 11th April, 2016, when the writ petition was dismissed for default, the order dated 11th April, 2016 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2022 and CAN 3 of 2022 are disposed of.

WPA 26923 of 2006

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the show-cause notice dated 18th May, 2002, the Articles of Charge dated 19th August, 2002, the enquiry report dated 11th January, 2003, the Final Order dated 26th March, 2003