AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved against the order of his dismissal from service, has been repeatedly filing writ applications before this court and the present writ application appears to be third one in sequence. Each time directions are given to the concerned authorities of the respondents to reconsider and pass appropriate order, the orders passed by the concerned authorities do continue to leave the petitioner still aggrieved.

(2.) The petitioner's grievance is against the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority who, according to the petitioner, have conveniently omitted to consider the grounds of objection raised by the petitioner and have also ignored the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the charge against the petitioner was that he had suppressed his caste and by taking advantage of reservation pertaining to the Backward Class Category-1, he had obtained his appointment. This charge, according to the learned counsel, was not found proved by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel in this context, refers to the specific findings of the Inquiry Officer as contained in the Inquiry Report. Learned counsel adds that the ground that the petitioner's height has measured as 179.4 cm and the candidates appointed in the Backward Class Category-2 had measured more height than the petitioner, is misleading and in fact, two candidates namely, Anant Kumar Sharma and Ramesh Kumar, both of whom belonging to Backward Class Category-2 and whose height measured at 178.2 cm and 178.3 cm respectively, have been granted appointment, whereas the petitioner has been discriminated. Learned counsel adds further that this specific aspect of the petitioner's ground, has not been considered by the concerned authorities of the respondents by referring to the actual facts, and as it appears from the counter-affidavit, a blunt stand has been taken by the respondents declaring the aforesaid persons as belonging to the Backward Class Category-1, though the fact is otherwise. Learned counsel submits that without application of mind and without proper appreciation of the petitioner's ground with reference to the documents on record, the petitioner's prayer for his reinstatement has been arbitrarily rejected.