ASHOK PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P-1 dated 2.7.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service, order of the Appellate Authority Annexure P-2 dated 10.10.2002 and the order of Mercy Appeal Annexure P-3 dated 3.4.2003, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as a Constable and was posted in Police Station Waidhan, District Sidhi. In the year 2000 when the cause of action for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner took place on 24.11.2000 petitioner was a Guard in the District Hospital Mandsor and was posted in the Jail Ward between 9 to 12 in the day time. It was reported that after locking channel gate of the jail ward at about 11.45 am leaving the sick convicts in the ward, petitioner left the duty place and due to this one convict Aallaudin who became serious could not be removed, as the channel gate was locked. Accordingly, holding petitioner guilty of the aforesaid act charge-sheet Annexure P-4 was issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2001, thereafter a departmental enquiry was ordered and based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report Annexure P-5 dated 4.5.2002 a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and without considering the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice he was dismissed from service, appeal and mercy appeals having been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, I see much force in the first two grounds canvassed by Shri Ashish Pathak. When the show-cause notice was issued to petitioner on 4.5.2002 it is seen that he has submitted his reply to show-cause notice through Superintendent of Police Mandsor on 11.6.2002 as is evident from Annexure P-18 but without considering his reply and holding that upto 1.7.2002 petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show-cause notice an ex-parte decision is taken and when all these factors were highlighted by petitioner before the appellate authority, the order of appellate authority Annexure P-2 goes to show that without adverting to consider all these questions particularly the question with regard to reply submitted by petitioner to the show-cause notice the appeal is dismissed in casual manner, without application of mind, without passing speaking order. Accordingly, in view of law laid down in the case of Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Shri Ashish Pathak the matter has to be remanded back to the appellate authority for taking a fresh decision after taking note of all these factors and for deciding the appeal by speaking order.