AJIT KUMAR SINHA,J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the office order No. 07/2004 as contained in Memo No. 353, dated 24.08.04 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2. The petitioner prays for a further writ, order or direction restraining the respondents permanently from acting pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned order dated 24.08.04.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was appointed in accordance with the applicable rules as Dalpati on 03.09.1983 on the recommendation of the Mukhiya within the meaning of Rule 3 and 4 of Bihar Panchayat Village Volunteer Force Rule, 1949 on the recommendation of the Committee vide letter No. 57 dated 5.11.1983. The petitioner was approved by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. According to him he fulfilled all the criteria and requirement as prescribed in Rule 3 and 4 having his age between 21 to 30 years with a good moral character and strong physical fitness etc. and also having the certificate of middle vernacular. The petitioner functioned at Karakaram panchayat as Dalpati from 1983 to 1989 with an unblemished service record and in 1986 he also underwent training under the Village Development and Panchayat Raj Department and was granted certificate on 20th of December, 1906 on successful completion of his training. The petitioner along with many others was selected for final selection for the post of Panchayat Sewak on 27.3.1989. After selection the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sewak and he jointed at Sahebganj on 9.5.1989 and was sent for training on 4th May, 1989. On completion of training he was granted a certificate for his performance with effect from 11.5.89 to 8.8.89 and he was declared as successful in the second division, as per certificate dated 8.8.89. Thereafter the petitioner joined at the place of his posting, vide letter No. 163 dated 3.6.2000 addressed to the petitioner he was asked to produce all relevant papers/documents relating to his appointment as Dalpati/Panchayat Sewak. The petitioner submitted all required paper on 14.6.2000 to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahebganj. On the same day petitioner also received letter No. 247 dated 14.6.2000 by a B.D.O. for production of relevant certificate along with letter No. 166 dated 3.6.2000 addressed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahebganj to B.D.O., Mandro. The petitioner informed the B.D.O. upon his notice that he has already submitted required paper before the District Panchayat Raj Officer Sahebganj which has been received and thus the order stood complied in any case. In the meanwhile the petitioner also applied and obtained a residential certificate from the Circle Officer, Raj Mahal as a resident of Babhangama panchayat and upon enquiry the residential certificate was issued on 12.2.2001 which was submitted before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahebganj. On 09.7.2002 the petitioner was put under suspension by Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj which led to filing of a Writ Petition (S) No. 6979 of 2002 and the same became infructuous and subsequently was stated to have been withdrawn by the petitioner. On 22.9.2002 the petitioner received charge sheet and was ordered to appear on 25.11.2002 for holding an enquiry. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 27.2.2003 denying all the charges levelled against him Finally the petitioner was discharged/dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.8.2004 which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is as to whether the impugned order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 2 after getting promotion and continuing in service for 21 years was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the ground on which he has been dismissed was on the face of it illegal and unsustainable because Rule 3 of Bihar Panchayat Village Volunteer Force Rule, 1949 there was no requirement to produce a permanent resident certificate of the village for appointment to the post of Dalpati. The third contention raised by the petitioner is that the enquiry report, in spite of repeated demand was not supplied which was against the well settled cardinal principles of natural justice and thus the entire action was vitiated and the ground on which the impugned order or dismissal was passed was on the face of it frivolous, misconceived and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents, in reply, submit that the petitioner did not produce any paper with regard to his residential proof and he further submits that there is an alternative remedy and he can move by way of an appeal before the Commissioner.;