V P BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Civil writ No.4617/97 was filed against the common Judgment dated 22/3/1997 dismissing 3 OAs and a review application filed by the petitioner and Civil writ No.2496/99 was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29/1/1999. Since the factual matrix and the grievance of the petitioner are interwoven and inter-connected both petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Before proceeding to consider these petitions on merit it is relevant to set out some facts explaining the absence of the petitioner during the course of hearing.

(3.) On 15/05/2000 when the petition was listed before the court a request was made for adjournment by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he is indisposed. On the next date on 3/7/2000 the petitioner appeared in person and stated that his counsel is not available and that he is not in a position to argue the case. Subsequently, the petitioner started appearing in person and on 10/10/2000 a request was made for adjournment on his behalf on the ground that he was held up in Bombay in connection with official duties. The matter was called for hearing on 13/12/2000 when the petitioner appeared in person and stated that he was not feeling well and would require 4 to 6 weeks to address arguments and that he would not seek any further adjournment. Despite opposition from learned counsel for the respondent, the Division Bench, in the interest of Justice, granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to address arguments. On the next date on 5/2/2001 the matter was adjourned at joint request and when the matter was taken up on 14/3/2001 the petitioner appeared in person and stated that he was not in a position to argue the matter and requested for a short adjournment. The matter was again taken up on 9/7/2001 as the matter was shown at serial no.6 on the top of the list but neither the petitioner was present nor was any one present on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was directed to be renotified, in the interest of justice for 10/07/2001.