RADHEY SHYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Sectional Officer in the year 1993 and at the relevant time he was discharging his duties as such in the Water Works, Mansa Devi Complex, Maini Majra, Chandigarh. On 2nd February, 1996, a charge-sheet (Annexure P-l) was served upon the petitioner, in which 18 charges were mentioned. An enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of six charges. Thereafter, the punishing authority passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service (Annexure P-4) dated 4th October, 1999 without any disqualification, for the future employment under the Government. Aggrieved against the order of removal (Annexure P-4), the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure P-5), which was to be decided by the Secretary, Local Government, U.T. Chandigarh-cum-Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed vide order (Annexure P-6). The petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 4496 of 2000 and the same was decided on 1st August, 2001 directing the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal and pass a speaking order in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellate authority again, vide order (Annexure P-l4) dated 20th March, 2005 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed another petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 9569 of 2003 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by giving following directions:

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of two orders passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4496 of 2000 (Annexure P-7) and Civil Writ Petition No. 9569 of 2003 (Annexure P-15), the appellate authority had again dismissed the appeal without complying with the directions issued in order (Annexure P-15). It is stated that if the earlier order (Annexure P-9) and the order (Annexure P-17) now passed by the appellate authority are compared, first three pages are identical and on page No. 4 the contentions have been noticed and same have been summarily dismissed without holding any discussion. Learned counsel has further stated that even if the discussion of the appellate authority is considered, the same is vague in nature and has not dealt with the grounds taken in appeal and the arguments raised by the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents has stated that the order passed by the appellate authority satisfies all the parameters and the directions issued by this Court in order (Annexure P-15).