- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 02.08.1986 and the appellate order dated 20.04.2005. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable and on 26.08.1986, a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 13.01.1986, he proceeded to distribute letters (dak) however, he remained absent from 05.03.1986 and got himself involved in a criminal case being Kashichak (Nawada) P.S. Case No. 11 of 1986 dated 25.02.1986 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 332, 333, 334, 341, 353, 188 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(A) and 27 of the Arms Act.
(2.) The petitioner was put under suspension on 05.03.1986. A departmental enquiry was instituted and on conclusion of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted on 13.01.1989. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 29.12.1988 and the order of dismissal from the service was passed on 02.08.1986. The petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 1990 (R) which was allowed by order dated 26.06.1991, directing the appellate authority to take a fresh decision. However, the appeal of the petitioner was not decided by the appellate authority and in the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by order dated 20.07.2004 and therefore, the petitioner approached this court again in W.P. (S) No. 307 of 2005, which was disposed of by directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner considering the order of acquittal passed in the Criminal case. The appellate authority again affirmed the order of dismissal from service by order dated 20.04.2005 and therefore, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under: 5. That the statements made in paragraph-1 of the writ petition is the prayer made by the petitioner has no merit and hence is liable to be dismissed in limine. However, it is humbly stated and submitted that a departmental proceeding being Dhanbad District Departmental Proceeding No. 63/2006 was initiated against the petitioner and after conducting the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of charges and as such he was dismissed from the service by the respondent No. 3. 6. That it is further humbly stated that the petitioner's appeal was also dismissed on 17.05.1990 by the then D.I.G., Coal Range. The petitioner had challenged the legality of departmental proceeding as well as the order passed in appeal. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering each points raised in appeal. In the light of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it appears from the record that the then D.I.G., Coal Range again passed a fresh order dated 22.09.1991 on appeal dismissing the same. 7. That it is further stated that the petitioner again moved to the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 307/2005 and the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the appeal within two months of receipt of production of the order, if the same has not been disposed off. The respondent No. 2 was also directed to consider the judgment of acquittal passed in criminal case. Hence in the light of aforesaid order, the respondent No. 2 again considering the direction of the Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 20.04.2005, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the respondent No. 2 has passed a reasoned and speaking order and the relevant points raised in appeal especially acquittal of criminal case, has been dealt with, the respondent No. 2 has been pleased to base its order of dismissal of appeal also in the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Hence considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant writ application of the petitioner has no merit. 9. That the statements made in paragraph-2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition are matters of record. 10. That the averments made in paragraphs - 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not correct. It is being respectfully stated that the petitioner has submitted his preliminary explanation as well as second explanation after the departmental proceeding was over. Further, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. All this shows that the petitioner did have information or knowledge of departmental proceeding. It also appears from record that the petitioner was given information/notice time to time through Sergeant Major by the Enquiry Officer. Further the Enquiry Officer had also gone to his house/police station but he evaded to meet him.;