(1.) Filing the writ petition the petitioner being a Member of the District Consumer Forum, Jharsuguda has challenged the order of his removal passed by the competent authority, vide Annexure-1.
(2.) Sri S.K.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to various documents filed along with the writ petition and placing reliance on the show cause notice at Annexure10 and the averments made in paragraph</i>-7 of the writ petition submitted that following receipt of show cause notice dated 16.4.2002, vide Annexure-10 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation by 23.4.2002, for the petitioner's approaching the competent authority issuing the show cause notice for grant of time to file his response to the show cause on account of illness of his mother at the relevant point of time. Sri Pattnaik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking final decision pursuant to the show cause notice instead of granting bare minimum time is improper. Referring to the provision at Rule 3(6) (d) of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, for issuance of the show cause notice and for the charges and the allegations involving the petitioner, Sri Pattnaik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that at the minimum one more chance should have been provided to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice under Annexure-10. For the nature of ex parte order and in absence of no consideration of the case of the petitioner, Sri Pattnaik prayed for interference of this Court in the impugned order at Annexure-1.
(3.) In his opposition, Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State seriously objecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking this Court to the documents available in the writ petition itself more particularly the document at page-24 of the brief submitted that the petitioner had a checkered career and the petitioner was a habitual absentee.