SHEO BARAN SINGH Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved by an order dated 23-4-1 990 passed by respondent No. I where-under he was removed from service forthwith. Besides praying for the quashing of the order dated 23-4-1990 referred to above the petitioner has sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from appointing any person junior to the petitioner in his place or any person out of the select list.

(2.) On 19-M991 the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for and was granted a month's time to file the counter affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. No counter- affidavit was, however, filed and when the case was taken up again on 2-8-1991 the learned Standing counsel prayed for further one month's time to file a counter-affidavit. By an order passed on that date a further time of one month was granted as prayed for with a stop order clearly indicating that no more time will be allowed thereafter. However, in the interest of justice under the order dated 9-9-1991 this court allowed further time of one month to the learned Standing Counsel for filing a counter affidavit. The respondents did not avail of even, this opportunity and no counter affidavit denying or rebutting in any manner the allegations made by the petitioner was filed by them. Since the petitioner had filed a supplementary affidavit another opportunity was granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit by 6-4-1992 making it clear that in case no counter affidavit was filed by that date the case will be decided on the basis of the averments made in the petition and the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Inspite of the repeated opportunities having been provided to the respondents no counter-affidavit denying or controverting in any manner the allegations in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner has been filed by the respondents. In the circumstances the facts asserted in the petition and the supplementary affidavit, in the absence of their denial, have to be taken as true.