D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Sri J. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents and with their consent, this application is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
(2.) THE petitioner in this case has challenged the order dated 11.08.2004 and 18.08.2004 (Annexure - 11 and 11/1 respectively) whereby he was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Besides praying for quashing the impugned order of termination, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to re -instate the petitioner in service with consequential as well as monetary benefits for the specified period. It is informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner has already arrived at the age of his superannuation on 02.02.2009. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief are that he was appointed on 31.07.1972 to the post of Storeman under the respondent B.S.L. In his application form which he had submitted in response to an advertisement issued, the petitioner had mentioned that he belongs to the 'Tatwa' caste in the category of Scheduled Caste. After being appointed, he was confirmed in his post. The petitioner had continued in service for more than 24 years after the date of appointment and in course thereof he was also given promotions to the higher posts. However, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice followed by a departmental proceeding on the charges that by giving a false information regarding his caste, he had obtained his appointment/promotion which, under the certified standing orders of the respondent company, was a misconduct. After the conclusion of the enquiry in the departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority had awarded the punishment of his demotion by order dated 20.04.2002 (Annexure -9). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner moved this Court by filling a writ application. While disposing of the writ application by setting aside the impugned order of punishment, this Court had directed the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry. Thus, a second enquiry was conducted on the same charges and after obtaining the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had this time, imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal of the petitioner.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the principals of natural justice as because it does not reflect the application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel explains that the impugned order does not state the specific charge for which the petitioner was subjected to the departmental proceeding nor does it discuss the findings of the enquiry officer and on the other hand, a routine observation has been stated that the disciplinary authority has concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Learned Counsel submits that for the same charge in the earlier departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority had deemed it fit and proper that the punishment of demotion is commensurate with the charge but strangely enough in course of the second enquiry, the same disciplinary authority has imposed the extreme punishment without assigning what could be the circumstances to differ from the earlier punishment. Learned Counsel adds further that such extreme punishment could not have been given, had the disciplinary authority gone into the findings of the enquiry officer who had categorically recorded that the petitioner had not obtained any promotion by any false representation made by him and furthermore, that the post on which the petitioner was appointed and which was initially advertised for, did not indicate that it was meant only for reserved category.;