- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ (s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari or mandamus for quashing Office Order No. 233/05 dated 05.06.2005 (Annexure 4) whereby the petitioner, Constable No. 348 of Railway Protection Force, was removed from services with immediate effect.
(2.) The factual matrix, as described in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as constable and was serving the Railway Protection Force w.e.f. 03.09.1990 and he was given Constable No. 348 (BNDM). It has been stated that the petitioner has rendered unblemished services to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. But, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a copy of memorandum of charge-sheet vide no. DA/10-04/153/6152 dated 02.05/6.2004 was issued by respondent no. 5 and Article of Charge, have been served upon the petitioner. The copy of memorandum of charge-sheet and article of charge, by which the petitioner was informed that the petitioner is a habitual absentee, have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 1/A to the writ application. It has been stated that since the petitioner was ailing, he had to remain on leave. It has further been stated that the statement of the petitioner finds support when the respondent no. 7 called a report of last two years from the department to decide the fitness of the petitioner for duties vide certificate dated 20.09.2004, as per Annexure 3 of the writ application. The petitioner has contended that after issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner has never been allowed to inspect the records nor has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the enquiry was taken place behind the back of the petitioner and the respondents have decided the proceeding in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India by inflicting major penalty i.e. removal from services without even issuing second show cause notice.
(3.) The impugned order dated 5.06.2004 at Annexure 4 has been challenged in this writ application mainly on the following grounds: (I).That the impugned order dated 05.06.2005 under Annexure 4 has been passed by respondent no. 4, who is sub-ordinate to the appointing authority, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. (II). That the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has been violated.;