SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Suraj Narain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) LIST has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 13/14-11-1991 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). It has also been prayed that the petitioner may be paid arrears of his salary.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was working as seasonal employee under the respondent Corporation and was subsequently appointed on regular basis as a Switch Board Attendant in March, 1989. The petitioner was awarded punishment and was suspended against which he filed a writ petition No. 21881 of 1989 wherein an order dated 6-8-1991 had been passed in favour of the petitioner. However, it was left open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner after serving a charge-sheet upon him and such disciplinary enquiry was to be completed within three months. It is contended by the petitioner that after the aforesaid order, the petitioner received letters as contained in Annexures 8, 9, 10 and 11 to the writ petition from the respondent No. 2 wherein it was informed that his explanation to the charge-sheet has been found unsatisfactory and, therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a date was fixed for the petitioner to appear in the said enquiry and place his defence. It is the contention of the petitioner that he went to the office of respondent No. 2 to submit his reply but he was asked by the Stenographer of respondent No. 2 to send his reply by registered post. The petitioner alleges that he received several other letters from the Enquiry Officer and has sent his reply to the same. It is contended that the notices published on 1-11-1991 and 2-11-1991 in daily newspaper Dainik Jagaran was not seen by the petitioner and, therefore, he could not participate in the enquiry, as such, the entire enquiry proceedings were held ex parte behind his back.;