AMBRISH PARASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application had been preferred challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings including the order of suspension dated 6th of February, 1992, the Charge Sheet dated 3rd of March, 1992, the enquiry report dated 1st of September, 1992, the second show-cause notice dated 15th of September, 1992, the order of punishment dated 10th of July, 1995, a memorandum dated 4th of March, 2003 and the Appellate Authority order dated 9th of September, 2003.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that while working in the post of constable under Railway Protection Force, the petitioner was issued an order of suspension dated 6th of February, 1992 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding and subsequent thereto the Charge Sheet was issued vide memorandum dated 3rd of March, 1992. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioner preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C. O. No.2710 (W) of 1992. During the pendency of the said writ application, the petitioner participated in the proceeding and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report vide memorandum dated 1st of September, 1992 to which the petitioner replied on 22nd of September, 1992 and the final order of punishment was issued on 10th of July, 1995 but the same could not be communicated due to an order passed in C. O. No.2710 (W) of 1992 on 3rd April, 1992. The said writ application was disposed of by an order dated 12th September, 2002 and only thereafter the order of the Disciplinary Authority was communicated vide memorandum dated 4th of March, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, a statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioner, alleging inaction on the part of the respondents to dispose of the statutory appeal. The petitioner again preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W. P. No.11997 (W) of 2003. During pendency of the writ application the statutory appeal was rejected by an order dated 9th of September, 2003 and subsequent thereto the said writ application was dismissed by an order dated 4th of December, 2006, granting leave to the petitioner to take out a fresh writ application and accordingly the instant writ application was filed and the same was admitted with direction towards exchange of affidavits and the same was finally disposed of by an order dated 2nd of May, 2012.

(3.) Subsequent thereto, the respondents preferred a recalling application being CAN 4877 of 2012 and upon contested hearing the said application was disposed of recalling the earlier ex-parte order dated 2nd of May, 2012.