BACHCHA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order as contained in Memo dated 21.11.2008 by which memorial appeal/revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further for quashing order as contained in Memo dated 14.03.2007 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further for quashing order as contained in memo dated 31.01.2006 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that while the petitioner was discharging his duties on the post of constable at Sahibganj, he was served with charge-sheet as contained in Memo dated 19.05.2005, wherein allegation of over-stay on leave for a period of 35 days besides other 16 such instances, has been levelled. Pursuant thereto, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in passing of impugned order of dismissal dated 31.01.2006 against which, he preferred appeal and revision/memorial, which were also rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though to the preliminary show cause notice, the petitioner replied assigning the reason of his over-stay and further bringing to the knowledge to the authority concerned that rest of the 16 charges had already been decided but without considering the reply, the departmental proceeding has been conducted that too in a most haphazard manner. In the proceeding though the petitioner tried to appear before the enquiry on each and every date but very crucial dates of proceedings were not communicated to the petitioner as such on that dates proceeding proceeded ex-parte and after completion of enquiry, second show cause notice was issued informing him that punishment of dismissal from services has been proposed, without service the copy of prosecution evidence or enquiry report, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner rendering the impugned order vulnerable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the departmental proceeding neither the petitioner has been given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor the defense put forth by the petitioner by way of filing reply to second show cause notice annexing medical receipts/prescriptions has been considered nor the receipts/medical prescriptions has been disbelieved by the respondents authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no finding of the enquiry officer as to whether the explanation given by the petitioner for his inability to join his duties in time was unrealistic or unbelievable of an afterthought.