Procedural delays in appeals can warrant dismissal, and contractual employment cannot guarantee reinstatement after termination.

ORDER

Assailing the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13415 of 2022, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in service in the respondent/Department on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Class-2. His services were terminated on 21.12.2005 by the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Maihar. The termination order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.14668 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.11.2007 extending liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The order passed in the writ petition was never communicated to the petitioner by his counsel, therefore, he was unaware of the liberty extended to him. However, as soon as the order of dismissal came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he immediately preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, who has passed an order on 07.12.2016 relegating the matter to the Collector for deciding the same as the Commissioner was having no jurisdiction. The Collector vide order dated 16.01.2018 has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that the appeal has been filed after a considerable delay. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was preferred before this Court. The learned Writ Court by taking note of this fact that the appeal has been preferred after a considerable delay of nine years without there being any justification for the delay in filing the appeal, has dismissed the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that liberty was extended by the learned Writ Court and if the impugned order of termination is to be seen then no justifiable reason has been given for terminating his services. It is only mentioned that the reply to show cause notice submitted by the petitioner is found to be unsatisfactory. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 and has argued that the reasons should have been assigned by the Authorities in the impugned order while terminating the services. In absence of any reasons, the impugned order of termination itself was unsustainable. The learned Writ Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the case and dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay. However, a reasonable prayer was made by the petitioner that the appeal which has been dismissed on the ground of delay should have been considered on merits. Therefore, he has filed this writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. The undisputed facts being that the termination order was passed on 21.12.2005 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition which was disposed off vide order dated 12.11.2007 as withdrawn. A liberty was extended to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent authority. The appeal was preferred in the year 2016 along with an application for delay. The records indicate that the reason for delay in filing the appeal was non- intimation of dismissal of the writ petition by the counsel to the petitioner. It is further seen that the application shows that the factum of withdrawal of the writ petition came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 24.01.2014. Thereafter, he has preferred an appeal on 07.12.2016. The application for delay does not disclose any reason for a period of two years also. Merely stating that he was unaware of the order passed in the writ petition and in absence of any reason for the substantial delay which has been caused in filing an appeal, no illegality is committed by the Collector in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. Even otherwise,