D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has challenged the order of his dismissal, dated 7.8.2004 (Annexure -15), passed by the District Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj. Challenge also is to the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 25.2.2005 (Annexure -17), whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of his dismissal was dismissed. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders and for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate him and to treat him in continuous service and also to pay him the full salary for the intervening period. The challenge to the impugned orders have been made on the ground that the same are perverse, against the weight of evidence on record and without application of judicial mind.
(3.) THE facts of the. petitioner's case [stated in brief are as follows: '' The petitioner was posted as Head Clerk in the Civil Courts at Palamau, Daltonganj. On 6.1.2004, he was served with a charge -sheet issued by the then District and Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge -sheet contained two separate charges. The first was that on the petitioner's direction, two employees of the Civil Courts, namely, one Ganga Mistry and one Akhileshwar Kumar had obtained quotations from a Firm, namely, Sidiqui Enterprises for supply of furniture and Almirrhas to the Civil Courts. The petitioner received both the quotations, but despite the fact that the quotations were the lowest amongst the other quotations received, he intentionally suppressed them in order to favour another Firm, namely, M/s Shakti Steel Ltd. to enable supply sub -standard articles at higher prices. The substance of the second charge was that though no quotations were ever called for or received from M/s Laxmi Narayan Gyanchand or from M/s. National Stores for supply of Stationary Articles and steel furniture, nor was any written order placed with the Firms for supply of any Articles, yet the petitioner received articles from the aforesaid Firm worth Rs. 2,29,621/ - without any valid authority and after a long time, made it over to the Nazir of the Civil Courts and to the Forms and Stationery Clerk of the Civil Courts. On the basis of the above alleged acts, the petitioner was charged of having connived/conspired with others in making purchase of furniture of sub -standard quality at higher rates for his illegal gain. Such acts were stated to be acts of misconduct punishable under the Service Code. In his replies to the charge, the petitioner had submitted his explanations. The contemplated departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the Enquiry Officer in course of which, witnesses were examined and the petitioner was allowed to cross - examine them and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show -cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be punished with dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanations. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, passed the impugned orders of petitioner's dismissal from service. Against the order of his dismissal, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority but his Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order. ;