LAXMAN PRASAD MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this intra-Court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in CWP No. 986/2004 whereby, a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition while declining to interfere in the orders imposing and maintaining major penalty of removal from service, as passed against him after departmental inquiry. The translated version of the charges against the petitioner-appellant in the departmental inquiry has been taken note of by the learned single Judge in the order impugned; and it appears appropriate to reproduce the same as under:--

(2.) It is borne out from the record that the petitioner-appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer in spite of several opportunities; and ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. However, after the Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte findings dated 06.12.2001, the appellant was afforded further opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority of making his representation/submissions; and he submitted the representation on 24.12.2001. The Disciplinary Authority, after a comprehensive examination of the inquiry proceedings as also the representation of the appellant, accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the charges of serious misconduct proved against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority, accordingly, proceeded to impose upon him the penalty of removal from service. The appeal as also the revision petition filed by the appellant were duly considered by the respective authorities and were rejected while upholding the penalty of removal from service.

(3.) Seeking to question the orders so passed, the basic contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant before the writ Court had been that he was denied proper opportunity to defend and the ex parte proceedings were not sustainable. The learned single Judge has referred to the record and has particularly referred to the findings of the Appellate Authority as under.--