- (1.) HEARD Dr. S.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to A.G. for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner in this case has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.05.2004 (Annexure -5) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 18.06.2005 (annexure -7) passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his termination, was dismissed. Facts of the case in brief is as follows : - Petitioner was employed as a constable in the State Police Service. On the charge that he had over stayed beyond the period of leave granted to him without prior information, a proceeding was initiated against him. He was served with a show cause notice to offer his explanation and to appear at the departmental proceeding but beyond submitting his explanation, the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceeding. Ultimately, the proceeding continued ex -parte and a finding was recorded in his report by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the impugned order terminating the petitioner's services. Against the order of his termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. When the appeal was pending and there was delay in disposal of the appeal, the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 760 of 2005. While disposing of the appeal, this Court had given directions to the respondent authorities to expedite and dispose of the appeal within a reasonable period. It appears that in the same order this Court had directed the authorities to consider certain issues which have been specified in the order. The appeal was subsequently disposed of by dismissal, by the impugned order.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present writ application are as follows : - (i) The departmental proceeding against the petitioner was conducted ex -parte and he was not granted adequate opportunity of being heard. (ii) Before proceeding to act upon the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was not served with the mandatory second show cause notice nor was he supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. (iii) The appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal, had committed indirectly, a contempt of the order of this Court in as much as no finding or decision was recorded on the specific issues which were framed by this Court in the order passed in the earlier writ application. ;