RAMKRISHANA S MAGESHKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, on the recommendation of the Departmental promotion Committee, was appointed as Police sub-Inspector initially on probation of 2 years vide Order dated 14-6-2002. On 21-3-2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension. By order dated 19-5-2005 (page 25 of the paper book) , the petitioner's suspension was revoked. On that very day. by Order dated 19-5-2005 (page 26) , the petitioner has been terminated from the service. Aggrieved by the Order dated 19-5-2005 (page 26) , the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The thrust of the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination is founded on the enquiry of misconduct held behind petitioner's back. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to deal with the statements that were recorded during the enquiry and now in colourable exercise of the power, the petitioner has been terminated from the service by the impugned order. In this support, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Chandra prakash Shahi Vs. State of U. P. and ors. , (2005) 5 SCC 152.