Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) Appellant was a constable in the Railway Protection Force, working at Howrah. He was implicated in a Criminal case for alleged offence under Section 3A of the Railway Properties Unlawful Possession Act, 1956 on the basis of complaint case filed on September 25, 1988. He was, simultaneously, suspended from the service and was charge-sheeted on March 29, 1989. It appears that the Enquiry Officer held a domestic enquiry wherein 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and, ultimately, the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of such offence and the report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority for punishment. The disciplinary authority by an order dated January 11, 1992 removed the appellant from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on February 7, 1992. During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant was acquitted by the learned Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah by the order dated October 6, 1993. After the said order of the learned Magistrate, applied to the authority for revocation of the order of dismissal. Complaining about the inaction on the part of the authority concerned in considering his representation for permission to join in service, appellant filed a writ petition before this Court being C. O. No. 233 (W) of 1994, inter alia, claiming that he is entitled to join in service not only by virtue of his acquittal but also on the ground that the entire enquiry proceedings and disciplinary proceedings have been vitiated by the principles of natural Justice. The principal grounds of which the said writ petition were based upon were inter alia, as follows:- (i) Since on the self-same facts the Criminal proceeding was pending, proceeding with the domestic enquiry simultaneously is an element of bias and in other words Justice have not seemed to have been done to him ; (ii) While imposing major punishment of removal, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to issue a second show-cause notice, having not done so, such proceedings is liable to be set aside ; (iii) The Appellate Authority is bound to complete the hearing of the appeal within the stipulated time as per Rule 220 of the Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1987 and since the appeal had not been disposed of within such time, it should be deemed to have been decided in favour of the appellant; (iv) Since the appellant has been acquitted by the Criminal Court he is entitled to join in service and the enquiry proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed on the said ground.
(2.) In the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent, it was asserted that the appeal bad already been disposed of.
(3.) The said writ petition was heard by P. K. Samanta, J., and was disposed of by an order dated December 21, 1995.;