Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by the Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force vide Annexure -8 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.2.2002 issued under the signature of DIG, CISF vide Annexures -5 & 5/1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of removal from service passed on 30.6.2000 by the Commandant, CISF vide Annexure -2 communicated by the Deputy Commandant (Administration) vide letter dated 4.1.2001 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the services with all consequential benefits. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while continuing services in the CISF was charge -sheeted for his absence without any information or permission from his superior authorities and subsequently departmental inquiry was initiated. Since the petitioner was mentally ill and was under treatment, he could not participate in the said inquiry and the inquiry officer held ex -parte enquiry and removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 30.6.2000, which was communicated to the petitioner by order dated 4.1.2001 vide Annexures -2 & 2/1 to the writ application. Since the period of appeal had already expired, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5406 of 2001 and vide order dated 20.11.2001, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to file appeal within 4 weeks along with petition for condonation of delay and the same was directed to be decided by the Appellate Authority on merit vide Annexure -3 to the writ application. Pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner submitted all relevant papers before the D.I.G., C.I.S.F., B.S.L. Unit, Bokaro on 19.12.2001 enumerating therein all the facts and circumstances causing his unauthorized absence and all material facts which could facilitate the proper hearing of his appeal as per the Annexure -4 to the writ application and Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.2.2002 rejected the appeal Of the petitioner being devoid of any merit and upheld the order passed by Commandant, CISF, on 30.6.2000 as per Annexure -5 to the writ application. Again, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5846 of 2002 and the respondents took the plea of alternative remedy of filing revision and the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the writ application so as to enable him to file a revision before the Revisional Authority against the order passed in appeal as per Annexure -6 to the writ application and pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner filed a Revision under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001 before the Inspector General, CISF vide Annexure -7 to the writ application and the Revisional Authority rejected the Revision Petition and upheld the order of Appellate Authority vide Annexure -8 to the writ application. Left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(2.) Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of argument has strenuously urged that the respondents have committed error in fact by not taking notice of the fact that the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the Inquiry Officer due to reasons beyond his control, which fact was placed before the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment based on ex -parte enquiry which is violative of principle of natural justice and also provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.;