GENERAL MANAGER LOKTAK POWER STATION Vs. SIRAJ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE serving as a Field Assistant under the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. at Loktak Hydro Electric Project, the writ petitioner-respondent herein was departmentally proceeded against on the charge of lifting of 100 bags of cement from the site of the said project and delivery thereof to unauthorised private individual. On completion of the departmental enquiry, the Committee, which was constituted for the purpose of holding the enquiry, reported that the charge framed against the respondent-writ petitioner stood proved. A notice, dated 22. 6. 1983, was, then, issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the respondent-writ petitioner directing him to show cause, within 7 days from the date of issue of the said notice, as to why he should not be removed from service. The notice was received by the respondent-writ petitioner on 28. 6. 1983, 29. 6. 1983 being the last date. However, the respondent-writ petitioner did submit his reply on 30. 6. 1983, whereupon vide order, dated 4. 7. 1983, the respondent-writ petitioner was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent-writ petitioner, then, preferred a departmental appeal, which was, eventually, dismissed vide order, dated 10. 11. 1999. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court and by the impugned judgment and order, dated 19. 6. 2003, passed in W. P. (C) No. 442 of 2002, the learned single Judge set aside the order of removal, dated 4. 7. 1983, as well as the appellate order, dated 10. 11. 1999 aforementioned and directed the respondent-writ petitioner to be taken back in service with liberty given to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the enquiry, if so advised, in accordance with law with further liberty given to the Disciplinary Authority to decide on the question of payment of back wages of the respondent-writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the directions so issued by the learned single judge, the present appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Dr. N. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. M. Gunendhar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner.

(3.) WHILE considering this appeal, it is pertinent to note that it was agitated, on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, that while directing the writ petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty of removal from service, the petitioner had not been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. Coupled with this, it was also agitated before the learned single Judge, on behalf of the writ petitioner, that the writ petitioner had not been given adequate time to submit his reply against the proposed penalty and even the reply, which the writ petitioner submitted against the said notice of showing cause, was not considered by the authorities concerned before passing the impugned order removing the writ petitioner from service. All the grievances, so agitated on behalf of the writ petitioner, were found to be correct and legally sustainable by the learned single Judge and on the basis of the findings so reached, the learned single Judge issued the impugned directions, as indicated hereinabove.