- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent authorities, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated, on the basis of serious allegation but without conducting any departmental enquiry.
(2.) Factual matrix is hardly in dispute. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Barman w.e.f. 1.9.1994. He continued as such till he was promoted as Barman w.e.f. 20.5.1998, as per the claim set up by the petitioner. As per the stand taken by the respondent authorities, petitioner was simply directed to look after the duties of the Barman vide order dated 28.9.1999. It is not in dispute that after 28.9.1999, petitioner was working as Barman till the date of passing of the impugned termination order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-1).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has satisfactory service record to his credit for about 24 long years, yet not even departmental enquiry was conducted against him, though, he was sought to be removed from service on the basis of serious allegations. He further submits that show-cause notice dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure P-2) was duly replied by the petitioner vide his self-contained reply dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure P-3). In spite of the fact that petitioner was sought to be removed from service on the basis of serious allegations, no regular departmental enquiry was ordered, despite his reply to the showcause notice. The reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was not even considered by the competent authority, while passing the impugned termination order (Annexure P-1). He concluded by submitting that since the respondent authorities have glaringly violated the basic principles of natural justice, the impugned termination order was not sustainable. He prays for setting aside the impugned termination order, by allowing the present writ petition.;