DIBYENDU NARAYAN SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of order dated 18.5.1999 as contained in Memo No. 363 and the Appellate Order dated 15.1.2005, whereby the order of discharge from service has been affirmed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on 4.11.1988 as Home Guard and was posted at Bokaro Steel City. On 11.9.1998 the petitioner was served a Charge Memo on the allegation that he obstructed the official work. By order dated 18.5.1999, the petitioner was discharged from the service. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Director General-cum-Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards, and by order dated 30.7.1999 the order of discharge from service was set aside. However, by order dated 22.8.1999, the Appellate Order was stayed. The petitioner made representation before the authorities and finally moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. 3259 of 2000 challenging the validity of order dated 22.8.1999. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.5.2002 against which Letters' Patent Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by order dated 9.9.2002. Thereafter, Civil Review No. 91 of 2002 was filed which was allowed and again the L.P.A. No. 358 of 2002, was heard by a Division Bench. The said L.P.A. was allowed vide order dated 17.9.2003 directing the Commandant General, Home Guards, Jharkhand to decide the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court in C.C. No. 3169 of 2004 which was dismissed on 12.4.2004. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Cont. Case (C) No. 1115 of 2004 which was disposed of by order dated 18.3.2005. In the meantime by order dated 15.1.2005 the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.5.1999 whereby, he was discharged from service, was decided by the Commandant General, Home Guards, Jharkhand. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court again.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a stand that the petitioner was appointed as Home Guard and he was a volunteer and therefore, the service conditions governing Government employees are not applicable to him. The order of discharge dated 18.5.1999 has been passed as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, however, during enquiry he was afforded full opportunity. The enquiry was not lacking in observance of the principle of natural justice.

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