BISHESHWAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order of punishment of dismissal from service as also the affirming appellate order.

(2.) Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of punishment has submitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing in the disciplinary proceeding and in fact the petitioner had not even been served with the notice of such departmental proceeding. He has also submitted the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is perfunctory in the eye of law, inasmuch as, even in an ex-parte proceeding, the onus to prove the charges was not discharged by the department and in fact no evidence whatsoever was led to prove the charge. Criticizing the appellate order, he would submit that the same is a bald, non-speaking order and does not consider any of the issues raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal.

(3.) Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned AC to GA-5, on the other hand while defending the impugned order, has submitted that the petitioner was not only unauthorized absent from duty but he was also purposely evading the service of notice of the departmental enquiry and to that extent, he has drawn attention to the refusal recorded on the registered post despite the fact that it was sent on the same address, which has been mentioned by the petitioner in this writ application. He has further submitted that there was no dispute that the petitioner was absent from duty for last several years and in fact, the notice published in the newspaper directing him to rejoin also did not evoke any response from him and he did not report for his duty. He has also tried to defend the appellate order of by stating that since the appellate authority had found no flaw in the departmental proceeding, he had rejected the memo of appeal by affirming the original order of punishment.