VINOD GOEL, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.06.2016 in CS NO. 371/16/07 by which the appellant’s suit was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-16, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

2. This case has a long and tumultuous history. The appeal before this Court has reached after having gone through multiple forums. The controversy in the present case started when the appellant married with Smt.Nivedita Dutta on 10.12.1982 in Kolkata. On 09.03.1985 the appellant’s wife succumbed to burn injuries and the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 306/498 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 25.04.1988. The High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence from 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellant then filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court being SLP (Crl.) No.947/1990 which was disposed off on 01.11.1996 and the conviction of the appellant was upheld but the sentence was reduced to the period he had already undergone.

3. As a consequence to the appellant being convicted by the Sessions Court vide order dated 25.04.1988, he was dismissed from service as per Rule 30 of the CDA Rules, 1977 vide office order dated 10.05.1988. The appellant filed an appeal against this order of dismissal after a gap of 9 years on 11.01.1997. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent no.1 vide order dated 24.06.1997. The appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court on 23.07.1998 being W.P(C) No.14193/1997 challenging the original order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 and the order of the Appellant Authority dated 24.06.1997. On 23.07.1988, the High Court of Calcutta without going into the merits of the case directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving the appellant a fresh hearing.

4. On 06.11.1998, the Appellate Authority after giving a hearing to the appellant dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 10.05.1988. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcuta being W.P(C) 22263/1998. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 14.11.2002 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. This order of the Single Judge was challenged by the appellant before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by way of MAT No.604/2003 (CAN 2294/2003) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2003 on the ground of limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction. This order of dismissal by the Division Bench was challenged by way of a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India being SLP(C) No.12201/2003 which was dismissed on 09.07.2003.

5. The appellant then allegedly filed several complaints and representations before the Appellate Authority and the Directorate of Public Grievances, New Delhi claiming that the original order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 was never supplied to him. The appellant is also stated to have approached the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee with a request for starting conciliation proceedings with the Respondents. In the conciliation proceedings, the appellant took the plea that he was never supplied with the copy of the order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988, which according to the respondent was provided.

6. In response to the letter to the Directorate of Public Grievance, the Ministry of Steel (MoS) sent a letter dated 25.05.2004 to Respondent No.1, 3 & 5 asking for a clarification on the same. SAIL informed