Suresh Tiwari vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 27 March 2003 in CWJC No. 12530 of 2001 Suresh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors.

The Petitioner-Appellant was a constable with the Railway Protection Force He resisted a transfer and in the circumstances disciplinary proceedings were taken out against him. The Petitioner-Appellant attempted to justify in not taking his transfer order on several grounds which did not meet with success with the learned judge, who decided the writ petition. The case was argued with much vehemence on behalf of the Petitioner-Appellant before the learned judge who was seized of the writ Petition. Before this Court apparently there is change of counsel. The only aspect which has been submitted is (a) that the punishment which has been awarded is very harsh for resisting a ransfer for which the Petitioner-Appellant has been removed from the service and (b) in any case the entire inquiry proceedings have been vitiated as the Petitioner-Appellant was not given a notice as a prelude to the inquiry proceedings.

In so far as the aspect of resisting the transfer is concerned, it is on record that on one pretext or the other the Petitioner-Appellant would not take his transfer These aspects have been sufficiently no (sic) in detailed by the learned judge who (sic) considering the writ petition. The Court (sic) no reason to take another view than (sic)corded.

In so far as the aspect of the Petitioner-Appellant being without notice on he inquiry proceedings is concerned, this (sic)psect stands belied from the record. In the counter affidavit in paragraph-38 in very clear and specific terms the Union of India had contended that notices had been sent of the Petitioner-Appellant by registered post (sic) two addresses. It was entirely up to the Petitioner-Appellant to have rebutted this statement in the rejoinder affidavit by saying that he did not receive the notice as it was never sent, as is being stated before the court. The court finds in paragraph-26 of the rejoinder affidavit that the Petitioner-Appellant conveniently avoided the statement except saying that what is contended is wrong and denied. The Petitioner-Appellant did make a categorical statement that he did not receive the notice. Thus, at every given time, the Petitioner-Appellant did have notice of the inquiry proceedings.

Beyond what is recorded in the Order on the writ Petition, the court is not (sic)clined to interfere as the court is of the (sic)ew that the learned Judge has committed and error.

Dismissed.