AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal.
The case of the petitioner-appellant is that he was a constable with the Uttarakhand Civil Police. He went on unauthorized leave when he was
posted at Pithoragarh. He did not return back and remained absent from duties for 78 days. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated. In spite of repeated
reminders, he did not even participate in the disciplinary proceedings. He was dismissed from the service. He filed an appeal which was also rejected.
Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there has been a
totally apathy on the part of the petitioner either to report back on duty or to inform his superior or even to participate in the disciplinary proceedings
which were going on. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.11.2009. Thereafter review application no. 426 of 2013 was filed, after four years. The
learned Single Judge by the order dated 25.07.2013, purely in the interest of justice, condoned the delay in filing the review petition. On merits, the
learned Single Judge held that the petition does not satisfy the parameters as laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
there are no good grounds to review the order. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal is filed.
Shri Prabhakar Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The review
application should have been allowed by giving an opportunity to re-argue the matter before the learned Single Judge.
On hearing learned counsels we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. Firstly, the fact that even on merits the learned Single Judge did
not find any ground to interfere in the order of dismissal. There is unauthorized absence for 78 days. The petitioner did not even participate in the
enquiry proceedings. He was totally reckless in his attitude towards the proceedings. It would appear to us that the he has taken a mere chance in
litigating for all these years. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition. In view of the absence of any error apparent
on the face of the record, the review petition was also dismissed, which was filed four years thereafter. We find no good ground to interfere in the
well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. The attitude or the manner in which proceedings have been conducted by the petitioner
clearly shows that he is not interested in prosecuting this matter. He did not even participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
Hence, we find no ground for interference. The appeal is dismissed.