RADHEY SHYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has a checkered history, spread over a period of 20 years. During this period, this is fourth time that the petitioner has been forced to knock the doors of this Court for the vindication of his grievance.

(2.) The facts, in brevity, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that while the petitioner served the respondent Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) as a Sectional Officer, through order dated 06.10.1995 (Annexure P-1), he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 02.02.1996 (Annexure P-2) was served upon him for alleged acts of omission and commission on his part. The charge-sheet was for imposition of a major penalty. The reply to the charge-sheet, filed by the petitioner, having been found to be unsatisfactory, he was subjected to a regular departmental inquiry. In the inquiry report dated 16.07.1999 (Annexure P-10), which followed the departmental inquiry, six out of the eighteen charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, to which he gave his detailed response. After rejecting the response so filed by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, through order dated 04.10.1999 (Annexure P-13), imposed on the petitioner the penalty of removal from service, which would not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government.

(3.) Against the above said punishment order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-15). On the rejection of his appeal, the petitioner approached this Court through C. W. P. No. 4496 of 2000 Radhey Shyam vs. U.T., Chandigarh. A Division Bench of this Court , vide its order dated 01.08.2001 (Annexure P-16), found the order of the appellate authority to be a non-speaking order and resultantly, while quashing the order, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal of the petitioner and to pass a speaking order thereupon, in accordance with law. The relevant portion of this order reads as under :-