Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Sunil Kumar Mann – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4830 of 2023 & CM Appl. 18675 of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Dismissal Order - Employment Law - The court found that the dismissal order was duly served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge of it, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a reply and a dismissal order, as well as directions for reinstatement and production of service records. The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order was duly served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge of it. The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a representation for relief.
Issues: Quashing of dismissal order, directions for reinstatement, production of service records, and permission to withdraw the petition for representation for relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the dismissal order was duly served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge of it, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the reply dated 01.06.2022 as well as of dismissal order dated 14.09.2010.
2. Petitioner is further seeking directions to respondents to re-instate him with all consequential benefits with 12 % interest and to produce the entire service record especially charge-sheet, inquiry report and dismissal order dated 14.09.2010.
3. The present petition is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 16892/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition on better grounds.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 14.09.2010 and pursuant to directions passed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2023, the respondents have produced dismissal order dated 14.09.2010 along with other documents.
5. On perusal of the dismissal order dated 14.09.2010 and other documents, we find that the dismissal order dated 14.09.2010 was even duly served upon the petitioner. It is also admitted and borne out from the various communications sent by none other than petitioner himself. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the aforesaid 'dismissal order' cannot be believed.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner would not challenge the dismissal order dated 14.09.2010. He, however, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a representation before the respondents for grant of relief(s) for which petitioner might be, otherwise, entitled to.
7. Needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled to any such relief, he does not require permission of this Court.
8. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed.
Knowledge of dismissal order and service of the order are crucial in employment law cases.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making and providing a reasoned order in cases of appeal against removal from service.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
Timely decision on revision petition
The court upheld the interim protection for the petitioner, emphasizing the need to maintain status quo pending resolution of the dismissal order challenge.
Delay and laches can impact the admissibility of a petition, especially when seeking relief related to pension release.
Timely decision on appeal and communication of reasoned order.
Consideration of petitioner's case as per the policy and communication of reasoned decision to the petitioner
The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with the decision of the appellate authority and allowing the petitioner the opportunity to meet the grounds for rejection of the appea....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
