D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the impugned order of his dismissal from service have been passed without affording him a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
(3.) Shri Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that on the same set of charges, based upon the same set of witnesses, two separate proceedings, one criminal proceeding and other departmental proceeding, was initiated against the petitioner. While the criminal proceeding was still pending, the departmental proceeding continued and was concluded by the Inquiry Officer recording a finding therein that charge against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to record an order of punishment against the petitioner, but before doing so, the Disciplinary Authority had neither issued any show-cause notice, nor supplied any copy of the Inquiry Report to enable the petitioner to submit his effective show-cause replies against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. This apart, the appeal which the petitioner had filed against the impugned order of his dismissal, was not disposed of promptly. Rather, it was disposed of after more than 16 long years from the date of filing of the appeal. Learned counsel informs that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had moved this court by filing a writ application vide W.P.(S) No. 5958 of 2005, challenging the order of his dismissal, on the ground that the appeal filed by him is still pending. The writ application was dismissed, though with an observation that the writ application filed after 15 long years, has become stale. Nevertheless, since the appeal was disposed of subsequently, and cause of action accruing to the petitioner on the date when the dismissal of his appeal was passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application. Learned counsel adds further that in the criminal proceeding, the petitioner had secured his acquittal from the charge and since the charge in the departmental proceeding was framed on the same and identical facts, the Disciplinary Authority has to reconsider the issue all over again in the context of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge by the criminal court. ;