- (1.) Challenge to order dated 02.05.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 17.08.2005 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected, is primarily founded on two grounds, namely; (1) while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the alleged past misconduct of the petitioner which was never brought to the notice of the petitioner, and (ii) the appellate order is a non speaking order and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on 04.09.1989 on a class-IV post in the Koderma Judgeship and he was promoted to the post of temporary clerk on 22.02.1993. On 19.07.2004, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he replied on 20.07.2004. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-memo dated 31.07.2004 in which a charge was framed against the petitioner on the allegation that he demanded Rs. 25,000/-from one Raghu Mahto for procuring a favourable order to the plaintiff namely, Chunari Devi who is wife of Raghu Mahto. During the enquiry 3 persons were examined by the prosecution. The complainant namely, Raghu Mahto was examined, however, he denied to have made any complaint against the petitioner and therefore, he was declared hostile. The complainant was called on two more occasions and re-examined by the enquiry officer however, on both the occasions, he turned hostile and refused to own the complaint against the petitioner. However, he admitted his signature on the complaint. The wife of the complainant was examined as P.W.2 and she has admitted that her husband had given Rs. 25,000/- to the 'peshkar'. Another witness was examined who had not raised the affidavit which formed the basis of complaint. An enquiry report was submitted on 15.03.2005 holding the charge against the petitioner found proved. The petitioner was issued a second show-cause notice on 18.03.2005. The order of dismissal from service was passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 02.05.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 02.05.2005 which was dismissed and a communication in this regard was made by letter dated 12.08.2005 which was communicated to the petitioner by memo dated 17.08.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which it has been stated that the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice. The charge against the petitioner was grave and on the basis of the materials on record, the enquiry officer found the charge proved which has been accepted by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 also reiterating the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;