Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) By this writ application, the writ petitioner, a dismissed employee of the respondent, has challenged the order of dismissal dated January 5, 2001.
(2.) The following facts are not in dispute : (a) The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi under the respondent and was a workman. (b) One watch and ward Officer of the respondent lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Hirapur Police Station on September 4, 1985 in connection with theft of two pieces of brass bearing weighing about 36 kg. by three persons including the petitioner. On the basis of such complaint, a criminal case was registered under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. (c) The petitioner was arrested by the police and subsequently was released on bail. In the meantime, the employer issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner on the basis of selfsame allegation along with an additional charge that the petitioner entered the office area without any valid pass or permit. Charge-sheet is quoted hereunder : "It has been reported that on 4.9.85 at about 2.30 p.m. you entered the plant unauthorisedly beyond your duty hours along with two outsiders, Sri Baren Roy, and Sri Satish Patel and apprehended by Watch & Ward personnel, Sri Sarat Kanjilal, W/365, Chandrama Chowbey W/221 and Jitendra Nath Goswami, W/352, while attempting to flee with two pieces of Finishing Mill press bearing concealed in the carrier of a motor cycle bearing No.TP- 1050 with an ulterior motive to steal company's property. As you were unable to produce any relevant pass or permit for the said materials in your possession. Explain within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for possessing the above mentioned company's material without valid permit with ulterior motive of stealing company's property, and unauthorisedly entry in the plant beyond duty hours, along with outsiders, thereby violating the provision as laid down in the certified standing order of the company." (d) The criminal and the departmental proceeding continued simultaneously. The petitioner, however, inspite of service of notice, did not participate in the departmental proceeding and the departmental proceeding concluded ex-parte wherein 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the employer. (e) Out of the aforesaid 8 witnesses, 6 also figured as prosecution witnesses in the criminal case and ultimately, the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner and other accused persons on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of theft and recovery of stolen property. (f) In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was adjudged guilty of the charges framed against him and by virtue of the order impugned herein, he has been dismissed from service.
(3.) Being dissatisfied with such order the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application.;