- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard both sides. The appellant Tej Pal Singh is also present in Court. In this matter, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. Against the removal order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Later he challenged the said order before the Tribunal and a further review was also filed. The Tribunal and the Reviewing Authority have also dismissed the respective petitions. Thereupon, he moved a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. The High Court also, for the reasons set out at page 4 & 5 of its order, dismissed the writ petition. We have perused the order passed by the High Court and other connected records.
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2006, this Court passed the following order: "Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner had not been afforded proper opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had refused to summon the witnesses cited by the workman. The dispute has been going on for the last 15 years. It would not be in the interest of justice to start the proceedings all over again. We have suggested to the counsel for the parties to settle the dispute for which they seek time. Adjourned by four weeks.";