- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ setting aside the order issued by the respondent no. 2 vide Memo dated 07.02.2006 pertaining to dismissal from the services.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was working as Assistant at Gamharia Branch of the Singhbhum Central Co-operative Bank Limited certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide memo dated 26.10.04. Manager audit of the Bank was appointed as conducting officer. While the petitioner was under suspension the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and the said charge-sheet related to fraudulent withdrawal from pay orders without crediting the pay orders. After superannuation of the Conducting Officer new Conducting Officer vide memo dated 07.09.05 was appointed. Even after appointment of new Conducting Officer no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of inquiry in the said departmental proceeding. During these period the father of the petitioner was suffering from illness, so he went to Patna to attend his father. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know a notice had been issued to his Chaibasa address and that notice had also been published in the local dailies of the area, however, the petitioner was not in receipt of any notice. The Conducting Officer without hearing the petitioner submitted an enquiry report on the basis of the documents available in the Bank. After submission of the enquiry report, no second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without providing an opportunity of hearing the respondents issued memo dated 07.02.2006 imposing the major penalty of dismissal from services. After having come to know about the order of dismissal from services, the petitioner submitted a representation praying, inter-alia, for setting aside the order of dismissal and reinstating him back in the service. However, the said representation did not evoke response from the respondents.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from services vide memo dated 07.02.2006 issued by respondent no. 2. , the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious remedy has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.;