Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 185 (GAU)

K. S. Moses Tangkhul v. Union of India and Ors.

2005-03-03

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2005
1. Heard Mr. C. Kamal Singh, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents. None appears for the petitioner when the case is called out for hearing. As per the order sheets of this case, this is the 4th time the counsel for the petitioner does not appear before this court when the case is called out for hearing. The order of this court dated 9.9.2003 indicates that the learned counsel for the respondents also submitted before the court that the petitioner had defaulted earlier on two-three occasions when the case was called out for hearing. The petitioner is a constable in the S.S.B., Manipur. The Commandant(GC), Group Centre SSB,Imphal,Manipur, the present respondent no.3, passed an order being No.III/4(72)/95-GCI/1497-504, dated 12.6.1997 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition) for imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 8.5.1995(FN), to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence by holding a full length departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the said order of the Commandant (GC), Group Centre SSB, Imphal, Manipur only on the ground that no proper departmental enquiry was not proceeded against him as no opportunity was given to him for participation in the departmental enquiry. 2. The learned CGSC submits that the petitioner was given three times to report before the Enquiry Officer vide Coy.Commander 'A' coy letter (1) No.A/7(Vol-III)/Absent/94/2110-11 dt.18.5.95, (2) No.A/7(Vol-III)/Absent/94/2163-64 dt.7.6.95 and (3) No.A/7(Vol-III)/Absent/94/2262-63 dt.1.7.95 (Annexure-R/1,R/2 and R/3 to the affidavit- in-opposition.). The learned CGSC further submits that the petitioner was also directed to participate in the departmental enquiry instituted against him under different letters of the Coy. Commander Inquiry Officer, Group Centre, S.S.B., Imphal being (1) dated 29.2.1995 (Annexure-R/5 to the affidavit-in-opposition), (2)dated 18.4.1996 (Annexure-R/6 to the affidavit-in-opposition) and (3) dated 2.5.1996 (Annexure-R/7 to the affidavit-in-opposition). 3. From the perusal of the available materials on record and upon hearing the learned CGSC, it appears that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to participate in the departmental enquiry against him for the charge of unauthorized absence. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered view that this writ petition has no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.