- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by an employee of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 598 of 2008, by which the writ petition preferred by him was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant herein had filed a writ petition initially for quashing the charge framed against him on 28.3.2007 alleging embezzlement of approximately Rs. 30,000/ - for which, a departmental enquiry was initiated and he was put under suspension. Finally after the departmental enquiry was concluded, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Simultaneously, a criminal case also had been lodged against the appellant and the same also resulted into his conviction. Consequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service in pursuance to the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding as also by the criminal Court which had upheld the charge of embezzlement lodged against the appellant. The petitioner/appellant herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties, took notice of the fact that the petitioner's service had been finally terminated after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and hence, the same did not require interference. Besides this, the learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the petitioner/appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum and without availing the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge further analyzed the evidence as to whether the charge levelled against the appellant was substantially proved or not and in the process, observed to the effect that the appellant was guilty of the charge, which was held to have been proved in the departmental proceeding.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on several grounds. But the preliminary question arose as to whether the writ petition could have been allowed to be filed bye -passing the alternative remedy of appeal before the department itself. Having been confronted with this question, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge although took note of the fact that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner/appellant, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has also expressed his opinion on the merit of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding and therefore, it is his contention that even if the appellant prefers an appeal, the observations made by the learned Single Judge is bound to influence the appellate forum.;