SANJOY KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition when was moved initially was moved with notice to Union of India the Respondent No. 1 on 7.10.93 Rule was issued and Mr. L.N. Jalan appeared for the Respondent No. 1 Union of India and waived service of rule. No interim order was passed and Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee issued directions to file affidavit and the rule was made returnable 14 weeks hence. On 13.6.97 Hon'ble Justice Barin Ghosh passed an order directing the writ petitioner to file necessary requisite for service of the Rule and copies of the writ petition upon the respondents. Liberty was given to the petitioners to mention the matter for being heard after service of the rule upon the Respondents is effected. It appears from order sheet that on 21.6.97 requisite as per the direction dated 13.6.97 was filed. It also appears from the records that notices were issued. But on 10.9.2001 and 12.9.2001 when the matter was taken up for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the respondents neither any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on their behalf. It also appears from the records that Mr. L.N. Jalan, Ld. Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Union of India.

(2.) In the above state of affairs matter was taken up for hearing and heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant writ proceeding the petitioner has challenged the chargesheet dated 15.4.91, the finding of the enquiry officer dated 27.11.91, the order of removal dated 29.7.92 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 12.4.93. The writ petitioner has also prayed for a declaration of Rules 143(2) and 153(8) of Railway Protection Force Rules as ultra vires.

(3.) The case as has been made out by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is inter alia as follows: