SADANAND RAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 17.10.2001 whereby an order of removal from service has been passed against the petitioner and order dated 19.12.2001 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as constable in the year, 1971 and at the relevant time he was posted as Post Commander in Bokaro Steel Limited. On 02.8.2001, the memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that (i) he failed to prevent the theft of 01.040 M.T. Brass Scrap (ii) he failed to inform the higher authorities about the incident of theft, and (iii) he is an indisciplined officer who has been punished on earlier occasions for misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply however, that was not found satisfactory and therefore regular departmental proceeding was initiated. An enquiry report was submitted on 27.09.2001 holding the charges proved against the petitioner. On 28.9.2001 a copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was directed to file his reply to the second show-cause notice which he submitted on 12.10.2001. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal from service on 17.10.2001 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 19.12.2001. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that during the departmental proceeding reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself. The charges against the petitioner are serious and he is a habitual defaulter who has been punished on several occasions for past misconduct. After considering the materials on record, the order of removal from service has been passed against the petitioner, which does not require interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.