S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) ASSAILING the penalty order dated 30.11.1987 discharging the petitioner from service, the appellate order dated 28.05.1993 and the memorial order dated 26.12.1994, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Matriculate Constable on 21.07.1976 and he proceeded for 10 days' leave on 12.09.1983. The petitioner was to report for duty on 24.09.1983 however, he could not report for duty and therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which, inspite of notices to him he did not appear and therefore, an ex -parte enquiry was conducted. By order dated 23.11.1984, the petitioner was discharged from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the order of discharge dated 23.11.1984 was set aside by the appellate authority by order dated 21.01.1987 directing the disciplinary authority to give a fresh second show -cause notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration his defence, pass a fresh order. Pursuant to order dated 21.01.1987, a second show -cause was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, the order of discharge dated 30.11.1987 has been passed. On appeal, the said order was affirmed by the appellate authority and the memorial filed by the petitioner has also been rejected.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed stating as under, 6. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 1 and 2, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that it will be proved from Annexure -2 and 3 of the writ petition that the concerned authorities had passed the orders as referred in the aforesaid annexures are valid legal and justified and the said orders were passed in connection with Departmental Proceeding No. 14/84. It is not necessary to repeat the contents of the said orders passed in the aforesaid proceeding, rather the aforesaid annexure will prove itself that there is no case in favour of the petitioner. 7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the present writ petition is also not maintainable as the same has been failed by suppressing material facts. The Departmental Proceeding No. 61/83 was initiated against the petitioner, in which he had been suspended by the concerned authorities. It is further stated that in Departmental Proceeding No. 14/84, the petitioner was dismissed vide District order No. 1937/84. 8. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -9, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police are just and proper, legal and valid. The said orders were communicated to the petitioner. 9. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -12 and 13, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same hence require no comment. 10. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -14 to 17, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the story of ex -parte hearing of the departmental proceeding is totally false and concocted. The same was passed to the knowledge of the petitioner. No error has been committed by the concerned authorities in holding the Departmental Proceeding. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) ON 23.08.2013, on a contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents were directed to produce the enquiry report however, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the matter relates to 1984 and according to the Rules, the record of a case is preserved only for ten years and the record of the present case is not available.;