Parveen Kumar v. Export Inspection Council & ORS

$~2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4157/2017 AND CM APPL. 18225/2017 PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person.

versus EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS ..... Respondents Through :Mr.

Anil Panwar, CGSC for respondent no. 5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 15.05.2017 Request of petitioner for the voluntary retirement has been rejected by the respondent vide letter/order dated 27th May, 2014, which is reproduced as under:- "To Shri Parveen Kumar, Tech. Officer, WZ 6A/A 9, Naraina Village, New Delhi - 110028 Sub.: Voluntary Retirement request submitted by Shri Parveen Kumar, Tech. Officer, EIA-Delhi (Under transfer for S.O. Tuticorin)-Reg.

Sir,

This is with reference to your request to Competent Authority for Voluntary Retirement, it is to inform that you have been relieved from this office vide letter dated 11/04/2014 to join at EIAChennai, Sub Office: Tuticorin and have not reported for duty despite lapse of more than one month and more than one reminder. As such, the period of absence is unauthorized. While working in EIA-Delhi you have been served with a charge sheet on 27/03/2014 for a misconduct of disobedience and use of derogatory language against Senior Officer, which may attract major penalty in due course.

Rule 48A provide for acceptance of request for Voluntary Retirement under general circumstances.

However, in case of disciplinary proceeding being pending, your request for V.R. is denied by Competent Authority.

Hence, it is advised to report for duty at S.O. Tuticorin without further delay failing which it would attract action as per rules.

Yours faithfully, Sd./- (Dr. J.S. Reddy) Joint Director"

Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order by this writ petition. Petitioner has approached this court after three years. He has not acted with promptitude. No cogent explanation has been given for approaching this court late. Petition is barred by latches.

It is noted that in the first disciplinary proceeding vide order dated 17th February, 2016 rank of the petitioner was reduced. In the second

disciplinary proceeding, petitioner was dismissed from the services vide order dated 5th April, 2016.

Be that as it may, writ petition is dismissed being barred by latches. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. A.K. PATHAK, J.

MAY 15, 2017 rb