PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing letter dated 10.12.1982, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and further for direction upon the respondents for reinstatement of petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Miner Loader at Keshalpur Colliery. In the year 1982, the respondent no. 3 issued charge -sheet levelling allegation against the petitioner that by way of forged signature of the agent of the colliery, he has withdrawn his salary for the period 11.03.1981 to 10.03.1982 and the petitioner also made his attendance for the period 11.03.1982 to 10.04.1982 by himself by making forged signature of agent, thereby put loss to the respondents to the tune of Rs. 10.131,11/ -. Thereafter, on the basis of domestic enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 10.12.1982. However, basing on the same charge, a case was registered against the petitioner bearing Katras P.S. Case No. 113 of 1982 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In the criminal case, initially the petitioner was found guilty of the charges under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to R.I for one year by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. But, in the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III has been pleased to pass judgment dated 30.04.2003 in Cr. Appeal No. 69 of 2000 acquitting the petitioner from the charges. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent requesting for his reinstatement in services with all back wages.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order of dismissal from services passed against the petitioner ought to be re -considered in view of the fact that he has been acquitted in the Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III, Dhanbad. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr. as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679.;