Delayed Challenge to Removal Order Following Unauthorized Absence Dismissed on Grounds of Limitation and Merit

The applicant, appointed as a Class IV employee in 1974, was transferred from Ratlam to Hapa and subsequently to Fulera in 1995 following criminal allegations and complaints by a co-employee.

Although acquitted of criminal charges in 1995, the applicant challenged his transfer orders before the CAT and the MP High Court, both of which denied him relief and directed him to join at Fulera.

The applicant failed to report for duty at the transferred station for approximately 12 years (1995–2007).

Consequently, the respondents initiated ex-parte disciplinary proceedings, resulting in a removal order dated 12.04.2008 and a subsequent order dated 07.07.2008.

The applicant approached the Tribunal in 2021, seeking to set aside the order dated 07.07.2008 and claiming arrears of salary and pensionary benefits.

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and should be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

2. Whether the removal from service following ex-parte departmental proceedings was legally sustainable given the applicant’s unauthorized absence.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which prescribes the limitation period for filing applications.

The principle that stale claims cannot be revived by making repeated representations, citing State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) regarding delay and laches.

The precedent in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) to emphasize that litigants must approach the court with reasonable dispatch.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant challenged an order from 2008 only in 2021, a delay of 13 years.

The applicant’s contention that he was never served the removal order was rejected as he failed to provide evidence of seeking the order or explaining the 12-year gap in service.

The court noted that the transfer dispute had already been settled by the MP High Court, which had directed the applicant to join his post at Fulera—an order he willfully disobeyed.

Since the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from 1995 to 2007 and failed to participate in the departmental inquiry despite opportunities, the court found the ex-parte proceedings and the resulting penalty of removal to be a valid exercise of administrative power.

The delay of 13 years was not condonable as the grounds provided were not tenable.

The Tribunal affirmed the respondents' action of removal from service following the ex-parte inquiry necessitated by the applicant's non-participation.

The Original Application was dismissed both on the grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and on its merits. No costs were awarded.