Bombay High CourtWP/419/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Kothu Nanda Meshram, v. State Of Maharasthra, Thro. Secretary Revenue And Forest

2016-07-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp419.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WP No. 419 of 2016 Kothu Nanda Meshram v. State of Maharashtra and ors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K. S. Motwani, Advocate for petitioner Shri K. R. Lule, AGP for respondents Coram : Z. A. Haq, J Dated : July 15, 2016 Heard Shri K. S. Motwani, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri K. R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 10th May 1979 after an enquiry was conducted against him on the charges of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 4099/-. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 8th January 1987. The petitioner had filed revision application before the State Government on 17th February 1994, but according to the petitioner, the revision application filed by the petitioner is not decided by the State Government and when the necessary details are obtained by the petitioner, it is pointed out that the entire record is destroyed in fire in the Secretariat.

The petitioner has not been able to show what steps he has taken during the period of twenty years from 1994 till 2014 when he suddenly came out of his slumber and enquired about the revision alleged to have been filed before the State Government.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out from paragraph no. 4 of the impugned

2 wp419.16 communication that the petitioner had filed Original Application No. 300 of 2006 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in which an order was passed on 17th April 2006 dismissing the Original Application. The grievance made by the petitioner is against the termination of his service in May, 1979 and since the petitioner has failed to explain the reasons and sufficient cause for inordinate delay and latches, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE joshi