AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Ganguly, J.—After hearing learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner.
The impugned order was passed against the Petitioner on 21.2.1996 on the ground that the Petitioner was absconding and as such it was not possible for the enquiry officer to serve notice etc. Therefore, order of dismissal was passed without any enquiry by invoking the powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
This Court has considered similar.orders in respect of some other persons and such orders were quashed with certain directions.
The Petitioner had to suffer detention in connection with a criminal case but thereafter he has been granted bail and is now on bail.
In that view of the matter, this Court directs the Petitioner to appear in the office of Respondent No. 2 on 5th April, 1999 at 11 A.M. or within half an hour thereafter. On such appearance of the Petitioner in the office of Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 will serve the charge-sheet and the order of suspension, if any, on the Petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding should be initiated and should be concluded as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months. The Petitioner must cooperate in the conclusion of the proceeding and if the Petitioner refuses to co-operate, the proceeding shall go on ex-parte against him. It is clear that if the petitoner refuses to appear on the date mentioned above before the Respondent No. 2 in his office, the Respondents can invoke the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
In that view of the matter, the Respondents are not to give effect to the impugned order. As a result of quashing of the impugned order the Petitioner may file a representation for his salary and if the same is filed that should be considered in accordance with law and disposed of within three months of its filing.
With this Order, this writ petition is disposed of.