OMPRAKASH RAJAK Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Challenging the order (Annexure P/1) dated 19.8.2015 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his removal from service, this writ petition has been filed and during the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order of termination (Annexure P/2) even though in the first page is said to have been passed on 13.6.2010, but, in fact, it was issued to the petitioner on 13.6.2011 and served to him thereafter. Immediately after receipt of this impugned order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 2.7.2011 within the statutory period of limitation, but, treating the termination to have been brought into force on 13.6.2010, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is time barred.

(3.) Learned counsel invited our attention to the stipulation made in the order (Annexure P/2), which goes to show that after the enquiry report was submitted, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.5.2011. He submitted his reply and thereafter the order of removal from service was passed. That apart, he also invited our attention to the statement of witnesses recorded on 17.2.2011 and various other dates to say that if the witnesses were examined in the enquiry on 17.2.2011 then the contention of the Department that the order of termination was passed on 13.6.2010 would be incorrect.