Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal communicated under Memo. No. CVO/26(343)/88 -89/963, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., dated October 5/6, 1989 and for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with full back -wages.
(2.) It is stated that the Petitioner was employed as a Superintending Engineer, Civil and posted at the Branch Office at Vizag. He was served with a charge -sheet by the Respondent No. 1, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. It was alleged that the Petitioner, while posted and functioning as DE(C), ZQ(C), CSF(C) at Bokaro, Bhilai and Vizag, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he acquired the movable/immovable properly in his name or in the name of his family members as a detailed statement was appended to the charge -sheet and it was further alleged that the Petitioner contravened Rules 4(i)(i) and (ii) and 16(1) and (3) of HSCL Conduct Discipline and. Appeal Rules 1978 and committed misconduct. An opportunity to file show -cause was given. The Petitioner participated and an enquiry proceeding started. An ex parte enquiry, however, was made and against the same the Petitioner went to the Appellate Authority and the matter was remanded back. After the matter was further enquired and the Petitioner participated thereto and on the basis of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal and ultimately being aggrieved the Petitioner has come to the writ Court seeking reliefs by way of filing of the writ application.
(3.) The main grievance of the writ Petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is placed on record that the impugned order of dismissal is not based on any evidence and the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry.;