$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4824/2026 CHADALA BALAKRISHNA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Kumar Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Sr. Panel Counsel along with Ms. Nasreen, GP and Ms. Soumya Saxena, Adv. for UOI Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, G.P for Union of India CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 13.04.2026 CM APPL. 23646/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4824/2026 3. Through the present writ petition, which has been filed in the month of March, 2026, the Petitioner essentially assails the correctness of order dated 13.06.2023, whereby he was removed from service on account of his absence without any sanctioned leave. 4. It has been found that the Petitioner absented without leave since 20.01.2023. Subsequently, the unit where the Petitioner was posted was moved to Baramulla. The Petitioner never reported back. 5. Now, the Petitioner claims that he was absent due to health This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:22:45 problem of his mother. The Petitioner claims that his mother was admitted in hospital on 27.03.2022 and discharged after a few days on 05.04.2022. Thereafter, she again underwent a surgical procedure on 22.01.2023. Although the Petitioner claims that he was not granted leave despite multiple requests, no formal application requesting for leaves has been placed on record to credence the said assertion and the Petitioner admittedly absented himself without being granted any leaves. 6. Moreover, the Petitioner also never filed any statutory appeal or revision petition against the order of removing him from service. There is absolutely no explanation for delay of nearly 33 months in preferring the present petition. 7. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that he has been making representations against his dismissal, and had sent a notice which was responded to. Such notice or representation does not furnish sufficient explanation for colossal delay in filing the writ petition. 8. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise writ jurisdiction. 9. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 13, 2026 “SS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:22:45