JITENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS is the third challenge of the petitioner to the order of dismissal. The petitioner was an employee in the Water Resources Department and was appointed on 27.11.1981. In August/September 1982, petitioner, alongwith others, were terminated but their termination was set aside by this Court. The petitioner then worked in the said department but absented himself allegedly without application or permission from 6.6.1985 to 15.6.1985 and then from 11.7.1985 to 10.7.1988. In other words, he was allegedly absent without application or sanction of leave from 6.6.1985 to 10.7.1988 except for a short period between 15.6.1985 to 11.7.1985 when he reported for duty. For the said unauthorised absence after departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service by order dated 3.6.1995 which the petitioner challenged in CWJC No. 9878 of 1995. On technical grounds, his writ application was allowed on 7.12.1995 and the order terminating petitioner 'sservice was set aside. Petitioner joined and consequently proceedings were reinitiated for the same charge as per liberty granted by this Court. Again by order dated 30.1.1997, the petitioner was dismissed. Again, petitioner filed CWJC No. 3750 of 1997 which was allowed again on technical grounds by judgment and order dated 20.10.1998. This time, this Court observed that it is second time that the respondents have passed order for removal of petitioner without holding a proper disciplinary proceeding. It is high time that someone should pay proper attention to the requirement of law and ensure that a proper departmental proceeding is conducted against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner joined and soon thereafter fresh departmental proceedings were initiated. Charges were framed. The petitioner 's defence was that on all occasions, he had sent leave application under certificate of posting. He sought to bring on record copies of certain intra -departmental communications to show that his applications at times were considered. The Enquiry Officer, in view of the aforesaid facts, held by his report dated 20.12.1999 that the petitioner was not guilty as charged and submitted his report. The disciplinary authority then issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner stating that he differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and found the petitioner guilty of being on authorised leave for a period of three years and the petitioner was required to show . cause against penalty of dismissal from service which was proposed to be imposed. Petitioner filed his show cause but being not satisfied with the show cause, by the impugned order dated 16.11.2000, the petitioner was once again for the third time dismissed by orders of the disciplinary authority. This order is under challenge.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that there is serious procedural infirmity once again vitiating the final order. As against the plea of alternative remedy as raised by the State, there being statutory appeal provided, the petitioner 'sreply is that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and that is an established exception to the plea of alternative remedy. For this, reliance was placed on the case of M/s Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari V/s. Antarim Zila Parishad since, AIR 1969 SC 556 wherein it has been held thus: In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice.