- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.08.2014 as contained in order No. 172, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from his service on the ground of absenteeism for the period which was already regularized by the authorities and also for a direction upon the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension which was denied to the petitioner making him handicapped and unable to defend himself in his case. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by DIG, Fire Service whereby the petitioner was punished and he was given two black marks which will not affect in future increment of the salary. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service with full back wages and consequential benefits by setting aside the impugned order No. 172 dated 06.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.2.
(3.) The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as cadet in Fire Brigade on 16.02.1990 after due selection process and his medical was done by the 'Medical Board' on proper verification. After appointment, the respondent raised an issue that the file pertaining to selection process showed the height of the petitioner as 178 cm whereas the height of the petitioner after appointment was found to be 170 cm. though the minimum height prescribed for appointment was 165 cm. Based on the above said discrepancy, respondent held a department inquiry in 1996, but no decision has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner's service was transferred to State of Jharkhand on account of cadre bifurcation. Thereafter, the respondent authorities initiated the departmental proceeding No. 3/10 in the year, 2010 for unauthorized absenteeism. The petitioner submitted his reply and the departmental proceeding were conducted by putting the petitioner under suspension. No subsistence allowance was paid. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent authority filed a criminal case in, 2011 before Sachivalaya P.S. Patna against the petitioner and petitioner moved before Hon'ble High Court at Patna for anticipatory bail. The police was haunting the petitioner and the petitioner apprehending his arrest was seeking shelter of the Court at Patna; finally he got anticipatory bail from Hon'ble Patna High Court. However, during the intervening period the petitioner could not attend his office, for which inquiry officer held the petitioner absconder for the period, 2011. In the meantime the respondent authority again initiated inquiry 3/12 for the charge of wrongful appointment. The said proceeding was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, by order dated 28.03.2014, the respondent authority imposed punishment of two black mark i.e. stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. Thereafter, the DG, Home Guard and Fire Services reviewed the aforesaid order dated 28.03.14 and passed the impugned order for termination dated 06.08.14.;