TRILOKI NATH PATHAK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ghaus Beg, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) However, upon perusal of the order of punishment, I find that after inquiry it has been established that no written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation, which can be prepared by the Counsel with the assistance of the 'Pairokar' of the Department. In the award it has been observed that on 10th of October, 1991, 15th of October, 1991, 26th of October, 1991, 30th of October, 1991 and 15th of November, 1991 nobody appeared before the Prescribed Authority on behalf of the Corporation. The petitioner has made an effort to explain his absence that suddenly he fell down due to attack of fits on 10th of October, 1991 in the Court premises itself, therefore, he could not attend the proceeding of the Court. Thus, it is stated by the petitioner that his absence was not willful, but it was inevitable. However, he has failed to explain the laches for not attending the Court on the subsequent dates mentioned, as above. It was stated by him that he received the knowledge of ex-parte order on 13th of January, 1992, whereas it was found proved that he noted the order passed on 15.11.1991 on 20.12.1991, but moved the application for restoration on 28.1.1992 to set aside the ex-parte award, however, the same was dismissed also.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: