PER PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2016, passed by the Respondent No. 1 and the letter dated 20.04.2016 pertaining to removal from services of HEC with effect from 18.04.2016 vide Annexure-1 series to the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined as Director (Personnel) in the Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC) in the year 2012. After joining on the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. In the month of July, 2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner appealed against the said order for revocation of the suspension order. Being aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 424 of 2015 in the High Court of Jharkhand against continuous suspension without the issuance of chargesheet for a prolonged period and the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15th April, 2015. The petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 271 of 2015 against the order of dismissal of suspension order, which was disposed of with certain observations. While continuing, as such, a statement of Articles of charges was framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-7 and the petitioner submitted his written submissions against the said charges vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The matter was enquired into and the petitioner submitted his representations against the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority on 04.12.2015. After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order, which has been assailed in the writ application. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The petitioner in person appeared and submitted that the enquiry report is perverse and the punishment basing on the said enquiry report, cannot be held to be valid. The petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before infliction of punishment and there has been miscarriage of justice, as no second show cause notice was issued prior to infliction of punishment. The petitioner further submits that the appellate order by the appellate authority is also assailable on the ground that the appellate authority sitting on the judgment of his own order, therefore, the said order passed by the appellate authority is a nullity. The petitioner further submits that he has become a victim of circumstances, as his two years' annual performance and the excellent records have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. During pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 6888 of 2016, wherein, it has been communicated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 20.05.2016 has been rejected.;