JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 1746 of 2021:

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing with the consent of the parties. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. The instant appeal is barred by limitation, as such, a delay condonation application by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1746 of 2021 has been filed for condoning the delay of 214 days.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL is having no objection in condoning the delay rather submission has been made that the matter be decided on merit.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and found from the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application to be sufficient for condoning the delay, accordingly, the delay of 214 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 450 of 2019:

5. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5332 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision of the administrative authority of the order of dismissal passed against the appellant on conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

6. The brief facts of the lis as per the pleading which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:

The appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed as a Trainee on compassionate ground vide order dated 22.04.1999 and while working as such, he faced charge sheet on 6/8th July, 2010 for unauthorized absence from duty from 24th July 2009 without prior sanction of leave and also for habitual absence in an unauthorized manner. The appellant did not participate in the departmental inquiry despite notice and did not respond to the second show-cause. The disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal from service against the appellant on 08/10th May, 2014. The aforesaid order of dismissal has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5332 of 2017 wherein the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of dismissal by dismissing the writ petition against which present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue in assailing the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the reason of unauthorized absence which was due to mental illness. The certificate about the mental illness has been produced, although after departmental proceeding, i.e. at the time of giving joining after recovery from the mental ailment but that has not been taken into consideration.

It has been submitted that it is a case where the principles of natural justice has been violated because he was forced not to participate in the departmental inquiry, as such, the order of dismissal which is a major punishment since has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law but these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, this intra-court appeal.

Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. and Others vs. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 513, Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 and Geetaben Ratilal Patel vs. District Primary Education Officer, (2013) 7 SCC 182.

8. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking the ground that there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice because the appellant has chosen not to appear e