PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner and his wife are both, employees of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (in short I.T.I.) and are posted at its Naini Unit, Allahabad. The petitioner in a departmental inquiry has been served with a charge -sheet dated 16.6.2007 and an additional charge -sheet dated 15.9.2007. He has been dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the General Manager, I.T.I. Nauru, Allahabad as communicated to him by the Chief Manager, H.R. (P & S) I.T.L Naini, Allahabad.
(2.) IN the petition as originally filed, petitioner has only challenged the order dismissing him from service. The petition was entertained by the Court, as prima facie the Court was satisfied that the dismissal order was passed without completing the departmental inquiry against the petitioner in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and an interim order was passed on 25.1.2008 staying the operation of the dismissal order till the next date of listing and the parties were permitted to exchange the pleadings. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for modification of the interim order dated 25.1.2008 and another application for staying his eviction from the house allotted to him being an employee of the I.T.I. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the writ petition was also filed seeking to add two more prayers to the writ petition. First one being for the quashing of the two charge -sheets and the second for the quashing of the subsequent orders dated 11 2 2008 13.2.2008 and 16.2.2008 by one which departmental proceedings were re -initiated and by the other two the petitioner's allotment of the house was cancelled and he was ordered to vacate the same. Sri Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 'was permitted to file reply to the above applications and the counter affidavit to the writ petition. He has filed two counter affidavits, one to the writ petition including the amendment application and another to the modification and the stay application.
(3.) HAVING heard the parties on the amendment application and on the merits of the petition as if the amendment as prayed for stands allowed, I take up the amendment application first for consideration. The petitioner in the writ petition has made necessary factual averments attacking the charge -sheets to the effect that they are without jurisdiction but has failed to make a specific prayer for the quashing of the charge -sheets. He has moved an application for amendment before the filing of the counter affidavit to the petition by contesting respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the I.T.I. nothing has been said in opposition to the aforesaid amendment prayed for, though it was vehemently opposed by Sri. Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel for the I.T.I. The petition has not been admitted and moreover permission to challenge the charge -sheets would not in any way affect and alter the nature of the dispute involved in the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the arguments advanced by both the parties on merits of the petition as a whole, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to allow the amendment application to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Accordingly, the application for amendment stands allowed.;