DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order of removal dated 10.5.2002, orders passed in appeals on 10.6.2002 and 22.1.2004 as well as order of revision dated 6.12.2004. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sanitary Jamadar in the year 1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Sanitary Inspector in the year 1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.8.2000 and thereafter he was chargesheeted on 10.11.2000. Ultimately, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 10.5.2002 on the basis of inquiry report, against which, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal on 23.5.2000, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of revision petition, CWP No. 8471 of 2004 was filed before this Court, wherein, directions were issued to decide the revision petition within a period of two months. After losing the battle before the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, wherein, order of removal from service, order passed in appeal as well as order passed in revision have been challenged.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner in violation of provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules as the disciplinary authority did not furnish all documents referred in the chargesheet. Learned counsel further contends that during the course of inquiry proceedings, the petitioner could not cross -examine the witnesses, namely, Raj Kumar and Suraj Pal as his defence assistant fell ill on the date of hearing. An application was also moved for adjournment before the Inquiry Officer but the same was declined. Learned counsel also contends that proper opportunity was not granted to the petitioner and, therefore, he was unable to put up his defence properly before the Inquiry Officer. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the service record of the petitioner was good and no complaint or shortcoming was ever conveyed to him. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is on the excessive side keeping in view the allegations against him. The total service of more than 18 years has not been taken into consideration while awarding punishment of removal from service and the order of removal has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and without taking into consideration total length of service. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The impugned order of removal was passed by giving proper opportunity and by following principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been shown as to how the impugned order of removal is contrary to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel also submits that inspite of giving various opportunities, the petitioner could not produce his witnesses as he wanted to prolong the proceedings. There was no option with the Inquiry Officer except to proceed ex parte. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on file.
(3.) THE allegations against the petitioner in the chargesheet were of misusing of his official position as during the period of suspension he gave orders to his subordinate to lift and remove sheesham wooden logs, which resultantly caused loss to Cantonment Fund Property. It was further alleged that he allowed some retired employee to occupy Government accommodation without his entitlement and also instigated the employees during strike. On perusal of documents available on file, it is clear that the petitioner made a request to supply the inquiry report before passing of final order of removal but the same was supplied after much delay i.e. after passing of the final order, which shows that due to absence of inquiry report, the petitioner was not in a position to put his case forward. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 is neither able to show that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the marks before issuance of chargesheet nor there is anything on record to show that during past 18 years of service, the petitioner was found to be involved in some other allegations.;