- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 4097/2000(R), by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein challenging the order of his dismissal from service was rejected. Consequently the order of dismissal stood confirmed and hence, this appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) THE admitted facts of this case indicate that the appellant had been served with a memorandum of charge alleging that he hatched a conspiracy for making illegal appointments after committing forgery and interpolation and also made payments harassing his junior staff and teachers and thereafter remained unauthorizedly absent. A notice was issued to the delinquent appellant and in response to the notice, he had appeared to participate in the enquiry. He, however, has come up with his defence case that although he was served with the show cause, after which he also appeared and participated in the enquiry, the enquiry did not proceed on the date when he had appeared and a fresh date of enquiry was not communicated to him when the enquiry was finally held against him. Consequently the enquiry stood concluded as an ex parte proceeding, after which maximum punishment of dismissal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellant felt aggrieved with the order of dismissal and hence he filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 2851/ 1999R, which was disposed of by the order dated 21.1.2000, wherein the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate forum challenging the order of his dismissal. The appellate authority was directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the appellant before the order of dismissal was given effect to. The petitioner/appellant submitted himself to this order and did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge contending 'that he should have been directed not merely to approach the appellate authority assailing the order of dismissal, but a de novo enquiry regarding the charges levelled against him should have been initiated. Instead of filing any appeal, he appeared before the appellate authority where he got sufficient opportunity to defend himself and assail the order of his dismissal. However, the appellate authority was pleased to uphold the findings recorded in the enquiry proceedings and thus, the order of dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority.
(3.) THE appellant thereafter filed another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4097/ 2000R, out of which this appeal arises and therein the petitioner/appellant contended that the enquiry, which was held against him, was an ex parte enquiry and therefore, the order of dismissal ought to be quashed and set aside, since adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to him. He further contended that in any case, the appellate authority was not authorized to impose maximum punishment of dismissal from service. However, the learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and hence, this appeal.;