R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 141 dated 19.1.2005, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby and where under he has been dismissed from service (Annexure -9) and has prayed for consequential reliefs.
(2.) THE relevant facts in short are as follows. One Amar Nath Rai, the then officer -in -charge of Dhanbad Police Station made a report to the Superintendent of Police on 23.3.1994 that he received confidential information on 22.3.1994 that on 20.3.1999 Asstt. Sub inspector, Laljee Mishra did not take any action against the offenders when he learnt about transaction of the looted oil on Truck, after taking heavy amount. Petitioner, who was Sub Inspector, also went with Laljee Mishra. The purchaser of oil informed that Laljee Mishra talked with seller and took money. It was admitted by the petitioner that he went with Laljee Mishra, but he said that Laljee Mishra talked with the offenders and took money. Laljee Mishra accepted his guilt and produced Rs. 20,000/ - which was seized in presence of Sub Inspector -Anil Kumar and constable -Rabindra Kumar Singh. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Laljee Mishra, for serious misconduct. The charge against the petitioner was that he went with Laljee Mishra from police station, without informing the officer -in -charge and without lodging any Sanha when they received information about unloading of looted oil from truck. Petitioner tried to save the offenders and tried to suppress evidence. In the departmental enquiry, petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. The punishing authority passed order of dismissal. The appellate authority confirmed the same. Against the said orders, he filed a writ petition being WPS No. 6399 of 2002, which was disposed of on 18.6.2003. This Court observed that it was not proper and legal on the part of the Enquiry Officer to use the statements of Amar Nath Rai and Anil Kumar without supplying the same to the petitioner and without producing them for evidence. The Court held that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were quashed. It was directed that the copies of the statements be provided to the petitioner and the enquiry be conducted afresh. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was conducted and the petitioner was again found guilty. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and after considering the contentions of the petitioner, passed order of his dismissal.
(3.) MR . Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court was not followed; and that petitioner has been prejudiced by non -examination of Amar Nath Rai and Anil Kumar; and that he has been acquitted in the criminal case; and that all the allegations are against Laljee Mishra.;