Samaresh Banerjea, J. - (1.) Today, this matter is fixed 'for judgment' and when this Court is about to deliver the judgment Kazi Mohammed Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents wanted to produce the records. It may be recorded that when this matter was taken up for hearing on 22.11.99 first, none appeared for the respondents nor any prayer for adjournment was made for which it was recorded that if the learned Counsel for the respondents did not appear on the next adjourned date, the Court might proceed in his absence.
(2.) Thereafter, on 17.1.2000 when this matter was taken up again, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted his written notes of arguments. On that date, learned Counsel for the respondents did not appear nor he produced any records nor did he file any written notes of arguments despite directions dated 22.11.99. Accordingly, the hearing was concluded and the matter was placed for judgment. Under such circumstances, the Court did not permit the learned Advocate for the respondents to produce the records at this stage after conclusion of the hearing.
(3.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner who was the Rakshak under the Railway Protection Force, has challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him including the second show-cause notice proposing to remove the petitioner from service.;