$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 16.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 16.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 7541/2019 JAI PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apurb Lal and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner calls upon this court to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the Order dated 09.07.2018 [hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟] in O.A. No.1884/2018, whereby the Original Application („OA‟) preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground of unsatisfactory explanation of delay.

2. By way of the said OA, the Petitioner had challenged the Order dated 28.07.2014 [hereinafter referred to as „Dismissal Order‟] passed by Respondent No.2, Lt. General, GOC, Delhi Area [hereinafter referred to as „Disciplinary Authority‟], dismissing him from service from the post of Conservancy Safaiwala (Sweeper) on account of prolonged and unauthorized absence from duty.

3. Thus, the limited question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Tribunal committed any error in declining to condone the delay in filing the OA and consequently dismissing the same without entering into the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts.

5. The Petitioner was appointed as a Conservancy Safaiwala (Sweeper) under the Disciplinary Authority on 28.11.1982 and was posted at Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantt. The record reveals that with effect from 14.05.2012, the Petitioner absented himself from duty without prior permission or sanctioned leave.

6. In view of his continuous absence, Letter bearing No.8711/Civ/93/A dated 09.07.2012 and another Letter dated 10.07.2013 were issued directing the Petitioner to report back to duty forthwith and to furnish a written explanation for his absence. Despite the same, the Petitioner did not resume duty. Subsequently, Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantt., issued letters bearing No.54/12/Civs (Jai Prakash) dated 28.09.2013 and 12.11.2013, once again calling upon the Petitioner to report for duty and submit a satisfactory explanation. The record reflects that these communications were duly dispatched.

However, the Petitioner failed to respond in any meaningful manner.

7. As the Petitioner continued to remain absent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge of continuous and unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 14.05.2012. During the course of the inquiry, Daily Order Sheets and show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner, affording him the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The material placed on record indicates that registered communications sent to the Petitioner were refused.

8. The Petitioner relied upon certain medical documents to justify his absence, however, he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings thereafter and the inquiry proceeded ex-parte. The Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of the medical documents, found that the said documents were not issued by a CGHS/Government Hospital or Government-empanelled hospital, nor by a Government-registered medical practitioner. It was further noted that the documents were submitted after an inordinate delay of nearly one year and eleven months from the date of initial absence and did not satisfactorily cover the entire period of unauthorized absence. The explanation was thus found unsatisfactory.

9. Upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and after examining the material on record, including statements of witnesses, the Disciplinary Authority vide the Di