DILIP KHALKHO Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (S.I.B.), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order 27th of Sept., 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, [Circuit Court at Ranchi], in O.A. No. 187 of 2011(R), as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, whereby the application filed by the petitioner in the Central Administrative Tribunal, with the prayer to quash the communication dated 29.1.2007 and order dated 21.11.2006, whereby the petitioner had been removed from service in an ex parte departmental proceeding, as also for quashing the order dated 19.4.2011, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner had been rejected, and further for a direction to respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner on his post along with all benefits treating him in regular service, was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The brief facts, giving rise to this application, are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Intelligence Officer (JIO)-II/WT in the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, [hereinafter referred to S.I.B], Ranchi. The petitioner had filed applications for leave on 5.11.2003, 5.12.2003 and he also filed applications of extension of his leave. The absence of 268 days was regularised to the petitioner and was treated as dies non. Pursuant to the annual exercise of transfers/postings of I.B. officials all over India, the petitioner was transferred to S.I.B., Dibrugarh under S.I.B., Itanagar, vide Headquarters' order dated 24.3.3004. Thereafter the petitioner represented against his transfer and sought its cancellation, but his request was rejected by the I.B. Headquarters and the petitioner was ordered to be relieved of his duties on 31.8.2004 with instructions to report for duty at AD/E, S.I.B., Itanagar, after availing admissible joining time. The petitioner again gave representation for cancellation of the transfer order, but the same was again turned down. The petitioner did not report on duty at Itanagar and instead, he sent another application dated 10.9.2004 for extension of the joining time on the grounds of his own illness as well as that of his wife, but the medical certificates as required were not submitted. Thereafter a Telegram was issued to the petitioner on 13.1.2005, directing him to report immediately as also to submit appropriate medical certificates. The post copy of the telegram was returned back undelivered. Further communications/notices sent to the petitioner through registered post at his permanent address, also returned back undelivered by the postal authorities.