Illegal APO and 14-Year Service Dispute

Dear client,

If no delegation order exists empowering the Secretary, UIT Kota to issue APO on behalf of UDH, the order can be challenged as without jurisdiction (ultra vires).
Service law is settled that an order passed by an incompetent authority is void. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that disciplinary or service orders must be issued by the competent authority.

Extraordinary delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings seriously weakens the employer’s case.

The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases that:

Inordinate delay in initiating proceedings,
Especially where employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere,
Causes prejudice and may vitiate proceedings.
A 14-year silence strongly supports arbitrariness.

The fact that you reported to UDH Jaipur and marked attendance (even in a temporary register) proves you did not intend to quit. The department's failure to give you a "posting order" after you reported to HQ makes them responsible for your "idleness."

You can argue that after 14 years, records may be lost and memories faded, making a fair inquiry impossible.

Courts rarely grant 100% back wages for 14 years under the "No Work, No Pay" principle unless you can prove you were not gainfully employed elsewhere. However, you can realistically fight for 25% to 50% back wages as "lump-sum compensation" due to the department's fault in not providing a posting.

Your case hinges mainly on jurisdictional defect , absence of termination order and 14-year inaction. These are serious procedural lapses. Continuity of service is realistically arguable.