NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>PRAMATH PATNAIK,J.</DJG> In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 4 pertaining to dismissal from services and the order passed by respondent no. 3 vide Memo no. 417 dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure-5) affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by respondent no.2 issued under memo No. 255 dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure-7) affirming the order of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as stated in the writ application, is that in the year 1994 the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the district of Chatra under the respondents. In the year 2000 the petitioner was transferred to Bokaro district police. While continuing, as such on 18.09.2010 (Annexure-1) the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegations of misbehaviour with his superior authorities and charge sheet was served upon the petitioner asking for show cause reply. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply before the respondent no. 4 denying all the charges and for exonerating him from the alleged charges. The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry and submitted inquiry report. In pursuance to the inquiry report, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice containing the proposed punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure-3) and vide order dated 26.04.2011 the petitioner was served with office order dated 25.04.2011 dismissing the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also rejected in a summary manner as evident from order dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a revision before the respondent no.2 and the revisional authority vide order dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure-7) dismissed the memo of revision of the petitioner in a mechanical manner without appreciating the grounds taken by the petitioner. Hence, the writ application has been filed by the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances.

(3.) Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been given full opportunity of hearing to participate in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner has nowhere put forth any written submission regarding his wishes to examine any witnesses as alleged in the writ application.