- (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal order dated 26.10.1990 (Annexure P-14) as well as appellate order dated 18.9.1991 (Annexue P-16), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was illegally held guilty of serious misconduct by the enquiry officer. Statements of witnesses, who appeared during the enquiry proceedings and deposed in favour of the petitioner, were illegally ignored by the enquiry officer. He further submits that the punishing authority also proceeded on a misconceived approach, while passing the impugned order of dismissal from service without considering and appreciating true facts of the case as well as material available on record, because of which the same was not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that learned appellate authority also fell in a serious error of law, while only modifying the order of dismissal from service to the removal from service, because in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner was entitled for allowing his appeal in toto, setting aside the order of dismissal from service and he ought to have been reinstated in service with consequential benefits. He concluded by submitting that since the petitioner was treated in an arbitrary manner right from day one, the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner misconducted himself in such a manner that it was not at all in the public interest to retain him in service. He further submits that petitioner used to absent himself from duty as and when he liked to do so. He was not only a disobedient but was also an incorrigible and unwilling worker. He also submits that during the course of regular departmental enquiry, petitioner was granted due opportunity to defend himself at every relevant stage of the proceedings. Principles of natural justice were meticulously complied with. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show notice which was duly considered. Every charge levelled against the petitioner was duly proved on the basis of sufficient material available on record. The punishing authority passed a well reasoned and speaking order awarding appropriate punishment to the petitioner, which was commensurate to the charges proved against him. He would next contend that the appellate authority was well within its jurisdiction while modifying the order of dismissal from service to that of removal from service. He concluded by submitting that present writ petition suffers from delay and laches, having been filed after about three years of passing of the punishment order. Finally, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;