NARESH GIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2008-4-10
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on April 02,2008

NARESH GIRI GOSWAMI Appellant
VERSUS
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
" (i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31. 01. 2003 and kindly direct the respondent No. 1 to take back the petitioner in service.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ as the principle of natural justice is violated by not giving reasonable opportunity of hearing on merits of the case.

(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemed fit in the interest of justice. "

(2.)THE facts as averred in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 07. 07. 1982 and worked as fitter upto 18. 01. 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the service without any show-cause-notice by oral order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made representations dated 22. 03. 1985, 24. 11. 1998, 26. 04. 99, 19. 06. 1996, 25. 02. 2002, 22. 07. 2002 and 19. 12. 2002 to the various authorities (Annexure p/2 colly.) The petitioner, in the meantime, filed an affidavit that there was no criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the All India Human Rights commission, Public Complaint Department, Raipur. The authorities, by the impugned order dated 31. 01. 2003 (Annexure p/1) dismissed the representation dated 11. 04. 2001, holding that the case for reinstatement of the petitioner on daily wages basis is rejected.
(3.)BEING aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition for the above stated relief. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order of termination was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, secondly, the rejection to reinstate the petitioner by order dated 31. 01. 2003 (Annexure P/1) is not supported by specific reasons. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the similarly situated employees have already been considered and reinstated in the service, without submitting details of the other similarly situated persons.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.