AMARSINH RATANSINH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th April 2004 of the respondent whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as RPF Sainik under the respondents since 1968. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as such, as his sister became sick, he had to go to Alwar on 12th March 1980. It is his case that on 12th March 1980 the petitioner was arrested by the police under Section 54 of the Excise Act at Jaipur at 5 PM and immediately after being released on bail, he reported for duty on 21st March 1980.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued charge-sheet by the respondents on 3rd April 1980 inter-alia alleging that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 13th March 1980 and he did not record mounting/dismounting and did not conduct seal checking from 9th March 1980 onwards. THE petitioner replied to the charge-sheet and ultimately after holding the departmental enquiry the enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. THE petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.25 of 1983 challenging the apprehended removal from service. THE Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 24th February 1983 in the aforesaid writ petition:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has continued in service and no adverse order is passed against the petitioner from 1982. However, the order of removal dated 21.12.1982 was served upon the petitioner in the year 2004 and the order dated 26.4.2004 was stayed by this Court. Now the petitioner has attained the superannuation about a year back. In that view of the matter, the short question is can respondent serve order dated 21.12.1982 on 26th April 2004. From the record it seems that order dated 21.12.1982 was not effectively served upon the petitioner though an attempt is made to show that it was affixed at the residence of the petitioner since the son of the petitioner has refused to accept the said order. However, no order is produced on record to show that the respondent to serve the order by affixing at the residence of the petitioner.