- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing the order dated 30.3.1995, issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated in most illegal and arbitrary manner and the entire departmental proceeding is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice; and (b) For quashing the order dated 31.7.2003, issued by respondent no.3, whereby respondent has dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 8.5.2003, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2246 of 2003.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was appointed as Post -time rated worker on 9.5.1989. His wife died on 18.6.1994 and the local police implicated him and, accordingly, he was arrested on 19.6.1994. According to the petitioner, he being a simple tribal could not write any letter to the respondents but communicated the fact of his arrest through the local persons. Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1994 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, was initiated and the learned Sessions Court vide its order dated 10.7.1997 acquitted the petitioner from the charges. Upon acquittal he went to the office of the respondents and gave his joining on 14.7.1997, which was refused by the respondents and instead he was supplied with a termination order dated 30.3.1995, which was issued behind his back, wherein no reason was assigned. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that neither there was any enquiry report nor any charge sheet nor any reason assigned nor any show cause was issued for which his services were terminated. In spite of repeated requests nothing happened and thereafter, he was constrained to file W.P.(S) No.2246 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2003, directing the respondents as under: "If any application is preferred by petitioner against the order of removal dated 30th March, 1995 before the Project Officer, Sarubera Colliery, Kuju Area, District Hazaribagh he will take into consideration the aforesaid facts and will decide whether the order of removal requires to be reviewed or recalled or not, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. 
(3.) ON 24.5.2003 the petitioner gave his representation but the respondents again rejected the representation and for the first time along with the said letter memo of charges and enquiry report were supplied to the petitioner.;