HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 372 of 2019

Virendra Singh ….....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and another ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of

India/respondent no.1

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

judgment dated 22.02.2019, passed in M.A. No. 331/50/2017, filed in Original Application No. 331/00032/2014 (“OA”) by the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”), Allahabad, Circuit Bench, Nainital, by which an application for condonation of delay in filing

restoration application in has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Against the penalty imposed by the Railway Authorities in a departmental proceedings against the

petitioner, a challenge was made before the CAT, Delhi, which was subsequently transferred to Allahabad. Subsequently, transferred to the CAT, Circuit Bench at Nainital on 14.11.2012. This was registered as OA No. 331/00032/2014.On 10.12.2024, the OA was dismissed in non prosecution. The petitioner filed a restoration application alongwith delay condonation application which were rejected by the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital on 22.02.2019. This is also impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, he had challenged the order of penalty dated 14.11.2012 at CAT, Delhi, which was subsequently transferred to Allahabad. From there, it was transferred to the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench Nainital, where the OA was dismissed on 10.12.2014. He submits that the petitioner was never given notice that the OA has been transferred to Circuit Bench, Nainital. That was the reason that he could not appear at the time of hearing before the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital. He submits that alongwith his restoration application, he had filed an affidavit also revealing all these facts and they were never controverted by the respondents. Even the respondents did not choose to file objections against the restoration application that was filed by the petitioner. But, it is argued that by the impugned order, the delay condonation application and restoration application have been rejected on the ground that the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital, by its order 11.12.2024 had noted that the service is deemed on the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is more than three years delay in filing the restoration application.

6. On it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no notice of transfer of the OA. Therefore, when he came to know about the dismissal order, he immediately filed a delay condonation application alongwith the restoration application.

7. The CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital in its order dated 10.12.2014 noted that notices were sent to the petitioner and they have not been returned. Therefore, the service is sufficient.

8. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he had filed an affidavit to the effect that he did not ever receive any notice from the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital. Therefore, he could not appear.

9. This fact is never controverted by the respondents. In para 4 of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2019, the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital has recorded that the respondents did not file any objections and merely what was stated was that the case may be decided on merits.

10. In the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2019, much discussion is done on the delay that should be explained. In para 13 of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2019, of the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital it is observed that in its order dated 12.10.2014, the CAT, Allahabad Circuit Bench, Nainital has recorded that notices have been deemed to be served on the petitioner and this finding has not been challenged. In fact, by way of filing the restoration appli