D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 7186 of 200, by which the writ petition which had been filed challenging the order of dismissal was not entertained and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner -appellant had challenged the order of dismissal which had been passed on account of the charge levelled against him for unauthorized absence from duty, who had initially proceeded on 30 days leave only w.e.f. 30.11.1989 and after expiry of the same, he was required to resume his duties on 30.12.1989, but the charge against the petitioner was that he overstayed beyond the leave period, without permission till 4.11.1992. The petitioner -appellant in support of his defence had submitted medical certificate through registered post but the same was not accepted and consequently he was dismissed from service, against which he preferred an appeal. The appeal, however, was also dismissed, which gave a cause to the petitioner -appellant to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the proceedings were conducted ex parte without giving him any reasonable opportunity to defend himself and therefore the order of dismissal which was passed as a result of the enquiry was vitiated and was fit to be quashed and set aside. As already stated, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner -appellant thereafter preferred this Letters Patent Appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also of the disciplinary authority of the Inquiry proceeding. Initially, in course of argument, it could be noticed that the petitioner -appellant has already attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, it was considered that it would be a futile exercise to enter into the correctness of the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority. But we were later on informed that the appellant has not yet reached the age of superannuation as his date of superannuation is due only in 2012.;