Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Order of termination from service of the petitioner passed on 07.03.2003 by the Project Officer, Tapin Project is under challenge.
(2.) The petitioner-Ram Nandan Nonia was employed as Piece Rated Workman at Tapin North Project under the respondent-CCL. On an allegation that he had killed his wife, First Information Report was lodged on 23.09.1999 and he was taken into custody. On the ground of unauthorized absence from duty a charge-memo, dated 09.10.1999 was issued by the employer. In an ex parte enquiry, the inquiring officer submitted a report on 26.06.2001. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.09.2001 directing him to submit his reply within 7 days. Another notice was issued by the employer on 27.11.2002, reply to which from the petitioner was received in the employer's office on 31.01.2003. The disciplinary authority finally passed the order of termination from service on 07.03.2003. In the meantime, vide judgment of conviction, dated 18.04.2001 and order of sentence, dated 19.04.2001, the petitioner was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 2000. However, the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges vide judgment, dated 02.03.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.193 of 2001. In his show-cause reply dated 23.1.2003 which was received in the employer's office, the petitioner has disclosed that he was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
(3.) Challenging legality of the impugned order of termination, dated 07.03.2003, Sri M.K. Laik, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination from service on the basis of the enquiry report, dated 26.06.2001 is illegal. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in a departmental proceeding an order of termination cannot be founded only on the charge-memo and a cryptic enquiry report.;