M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter under Memo No. 1158 -59 dated 5.8.1997, whereby the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been affirmed by Respondent No. 2, Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the respondent CCL. The petitioner who was serving as LDC in the Area Accounts Office of the respondent was charge sheeted vide Memo dated 5.6.1990 on the allegation of committing unnatural offence. A criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner under Section 377, IPC being Kuju P.S. Case 152/90. The petitioner filed a show cause and thereafter the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and submitted an ex -parte report. The petitioner submitted a representation with a prayer for constitution of Inquiry Committee for holding a full -fledged inquiry. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded to Respondent No. 3. In the meantime by judgment dated 17.6.1994, the petitioner was convicted under Section 377 and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1994 before the District Judge, Hazaribagh. Taking into consideration the order of conviction the respondents issued dismissal order on 27.6.1994, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 397/1995 (R) which -was allowed by a bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.1.1996. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. For better appreciation the aforesaid order is reproduced hereinbelow. "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has been dismissed from service by the order dated 27.6.1994 on charges of some gross misconduct. The order was passed after holding enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was held ex - parte and no copy of the Enquiry Officers report was furnished to the petitioner before passing of the order of dismissal and consequently the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to make representation against the enquiry officers report and the Impugned order of, dismissal is, therefore, vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make representation against the finding of the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given opportunity to appear in the domestic enquiry held into the charges but he did not participate in the enquiry and consequently enquiry had to be held ex -parte. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents, however, does not dispute that no copy of the enquiry officers report was furnished to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to make representation against the finding of the enquiry officer. The impugned order of dismissal on the short ground of denial of opportunity to make representation against the finding of the enquiry officer is vitiated. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 27.6.1994, is set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with the liberty to the respondent Management to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of furnishing the petitioner with the enquiry officers report by placing the petitioner under suspension. The question whether the petitioner would be entitled to take back wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, is left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceeding and depending on the final outcome."
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid decision of this Court the petitioner was reinstead in service and a copy of the inquiry report was served on him. An order of suspension was also issued on 30.3.1996. In the meantime Criminal Case No. 128/1994 filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction was allowed and the judgment of conviction was set aside. The petitioner served a copy of the judgment to Respondent No. 3 and also requested the respondents to supply copies of the documents which was refused. Surprisingly the respondents issued office order dated 6.5.1996, constituting another inquiry committee. However that order dated 6.5.1996, was subsequently withdrawn by another letter dated 5.6.1996. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued the dismissal order vide Memo dated 5.7.1996. It is worth to mention here that before issuance of the dismissal order, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by preferring an appeal before Respondent No. 2, who by a non speaking order dismissed the appeal.;