SHASHI KANT PASWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ application assails the order of dismissal dated 3.7.1996, Annexure-16. in view of the factual position emerging during course of argument it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case in detail. Suffice it to say that by order dated 5.11.2004, respondents were directed to make available the order-sheet of the departmental proceedings to demonstrate that the petitioner had been given due intimation and had knowledge of the dates fixed in the enquiry, or that he duly participated in the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made specific submission that after the petitioner submitted his show cause to the memo of charges on 13.5.1994, he was not communicated the dates to be fixed in the enquiry. It was further submitted that the records would reveal that in this case no notices were issued to the petitioner with regard to the dates fixed for enquiry and which allegedly proceeded behind his back leading to the impugned order of dismissal dated 3.7.1996. The second show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and the objections thereto in this regard also were not considered. The orders in departmental appeal by the petitioner was never communicated to him.