- (1.) Challenging the penalty order dated 31.01.2003 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the appellate order dated 01.06.2005 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) A charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 28.02.1999, he was found drunk and he fired in the air. He was caught by the persons present there otherwise, it would have resulted in some serious incident. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report dated 15.11.2002 was submitted. The petitioner was served the second show-cause notice by letter dated 04.12.2002 and he submitted his reply however, his defence was not accepted. The order of dismissal from service was passed on 31.01.2003 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by order dated 01.06.2005.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under, 14. That the statements and allegation made in paragraph No. 11 of the writ application under reply are wrong and denied. It is submitted in this connection that in spite of receipt of notice to appear in Departmental Proceeding No. 35/99, the petitioner never cooperated during proceeding for sake of delay. However, the proceeding has concluded on 15.11.2002 and finally on 31.1.2003. There is no delay in concluding the proceeding. It is submitted that paragraph No. 2 and 3 of page-2 of final conclusion of departmental proceeding (Annexure-2 of the writ application at page-16) will show that the petitioner never made cooperation in the proceeding. 15. That the statements made in paragraph No. 12 of the writ application under reply are wrong and denied. It is submitted in this connection that the Material witnesses were examined during departmental proceeding. Throughout examination of witnesses, the petitioner never made cooperation during proceeding as stated earlier. 16. That the statements made in paragraph No. 13 of the writ application under reply are wrong. It is submitted that Annexure-2 of the writ application filed by the petitioner itself shows that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner to appear before the proceeding but he did not appear for the sake of delay, hence, there is no question to give opportunity. Various opportunities were given to the petitioner.;