- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: i) For the issuance of a writ, direction order in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the discharge order dated 7.7.2001(Annexure -1) issued by Respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been discharged from service with immediate effect. ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order including a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for giving effect to the impugned orders dated 7.7.2001 contained in Anexure -1 and to direct them to restore the status and public office of the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(2.) THE facts in brief are stated as under: The petitioner was appointed as clerk by the Management of B.C.C.L. in the year 1971. On 7.7.2001 the petitioner received a discharge letter under the signature of Agent/Project -Officer, Dhansar/industry colliery discharging the petitioner purported to be under clause 28 of the certified standing orders of B.C.C.L., respondent herein. The main contention raised by the learned Senior counsel Sri P.K. Sinha on behalf of the petitioner is that the charges leveled against him is baseless, motivated, arbitrary and illegal and he was not given any opportunity by the management to explain the charges leveled against him and no enquiry was conducted in the matter and thus, it was in violation of the well settled cardinal principle of natural justice as also violative of Article 14 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the order of discharge under clause 28 of the certified standing order also prescribed a mandatory procedure which was not followed and even the requirement under Clause 27 of the standing order was ignored. To support his contention he has referred to and relied upon several Judgments and in particular 1984 Suppl. SCC pg. 554 para -5 and AIR 1986 pg. 157. The learned Senior Counsel specifically challenges the vires of standing order under Clause 28 on the ground that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the well settled principles of natural justice. ;