Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) On the charge of committing theft within the factory premises beyond office hours with the help of outsiders the writ petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and was proceeded departmentally. After the submission of the enquiry report the writ petitioner approached this court alleging that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend by the Enquiry Officer The said writ petition being W.P. 9093(W) of 1998 was disposed of by Samaresh Banerjee, J. by an order dated 21st July, 1998 wherein His Lordship upon verifying the records found that reasonable opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. However, His Lordship held that a further opportunity should be given in view of the fact that the writ petitioner could not produce the defence witness before the Enquiry Officer. In the said order His Lordship fixed the date of enquiry on 17th August, 1998 at 1 l A.M. for the purpose of production of the defence witness. The said order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even then on the said date the writ petitioner did not attend the proceeding, instead made an application for adjournment on the ground that he could not produce his defence witness on the said date. Once the date of enquiry had been fixed by this court upon giving reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to produce his witness the writ petitioner should have been present before the enquiry officer and should have co- operated with him. Once the date was fixed by this court the enquiry officer had rightly rejected the application for adjournment. Accordingly the enquiry was held . The report of the enquiry officer along with the second show case notice was sent to the writ petitioner's recorded address by registered post and as well as under certificate of posting. The register cover came back unserved with the remark that the writ petitioner was not found for consecutive seven days. After the said undelivered cover came back unserved the disciplinary authority considering the report of the enquiry officer passed the order of punishment which has been impugned before me.
(2.) Mr. Amitava Mukherjee, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner has as S.A.I.L. ed the order of dismissal on three fold grounds, (i) no reasonable opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to represent him before the enquiry officer, (ii) no copy of the enquiry report or the second show cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner, and (iii) the second show cause notice, as annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition, would demonstrate that the disciplinary authority was in a close mind and as such the said notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) To elaborate submissions on the. first issue Mr. Mukherjee submits that since the defence witness could not be produced on 17th August, 1988, an fixed by this court, the enquiry officer should have given him a further opportunity. Instead of doing so the enquiry proceeding was completed thereby denying reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself.;