Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 13th February, 1999, Annexure -4 issued by the Disciplinary Authority under the Respondent -Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on the findings of guilt arrived at in the departmental proceeding on the charges that he was trying to steal copper wire to the tune of Rs. 2500/ - while he was working as a Fitter at Angarpathra Colliery, Katras under Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The F.I.R. was also registered on 4th November, 1998 with same allegation. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in CWJC No. 632 of 1999(R), but the same was withdrawn on account of the pendency of the criminal case. On being acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 21st January, 2004, he preferred another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6581 of 2004 to challenge the dismissal order. Learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th December, 2004, Annexure -6 was pleased to allow the petitioner to file a representation before the authority, who was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within stipulated period. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 16th March, 2005 passed by respondent No. 3, the Chief General Manager, Katras Area, Dhanbad, Annexure -7, which is also impugned herein.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner, who faced the departmental proceeding on same charges, have been acquitted by the Trial Court concerned, still the respondents have chosen not to reinstate him in service. It is submitted that the charges were only of attempt to steal and the punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate to misconduct alleged to have been established against the petitioner, who was only a Fitter in the Respondent -B.C.C.L. and had unblemished service record prior to that, as such he should not have been imposed with serious punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would have reached the age of superannuation by 2003 itself. The inquiry report is also not on record.;