(1.) THIS letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 27 March 2003 in CWJC No. 12530. of 2001 Suresh Tiwari V/s. Union of India and Ors.
(2.) THE petitioner -appellant was a constable with the Railway Protection Force. He resisted a transfer and in the circumstances disciplinary proceedings were taken out against him. The petitioner -appellant attempted to justify in not taking his transfer order on several grounds which did not meet with success with the learned judge, who decided the writ petition. The case was argued with much vehemence on behalf of the petitioner -appellant before the learned judge who was seized of the writ petition. Before this court apparently there is change of counsel. The only aspect which has been submitted is (a) that the punishment which has been awarded is very harsh for resisting a ransfer for which the petitioner -appellant has been removed from the service and (b) in any case the entire inquiry proceedings have been vitiated as the petitioner -appellant was not given a notice as a prelude to the inquiry proceedings.
(3.) IN so tar as the aspect of the petitioner -appellant being without notice on the inquiry proceedings is concerned, this apsect stands belied from the record. In the counter affidavit in paragraph -38 in very clear and specific terms the Union of India had contended that notices had been sent to the petitioner -appellant by registered post at two addresses. It was entirely up to the petitioner -appellant to have rebutted this statement in the rejoinder affidavit by saying that he did not receive the notice as it was never sent, as is being stated before the court. The court finds in paragraph -26 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner -appellant conveniently avoided the statement except saying that what is contended is wrong and denied. The petitioner -appellant did make a categorical statement that he did not receive the notice. Thus, at every given time, the petitioner -appellant did have notice of the inquiry proceedings.