ORDER
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned J.C. to G.P.I.
2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 8.1.2001 by reason whereof six weeks’ time was granted to the State to file Counter Affidavit and they were directed to specifically state as to whether any proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was initiated and whether the Petitioner was served with a copy of the Inquiry Report or not. In the same order it was specifically Indicated that the case may
be disposed off at the admission stage. A copy of the order was also directed to be handed over to the G.P.I. and on the next day such a copy was in fact handed over to him.
3. Today (about two years from the date of passing of the aforementioned order) when this case was called out, Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned J.C. to G.P.I, stated that the Office of the G.P.I. had made a number of correspondence with the concerned officers of the Department, but they have not sent any instructions till date.
4. In that view of the matter, the right granted to the State to file Counter Affidavit is now closed and this case is now taken up on the basis of pleadings made in the Writ Application.
5. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Office Order No. 417 dated 11.10.2000 as contained at Annexure 5 by reason whereof and on the basis of an Inquiry Report, the Respondent No. 2 proceeded to inflict four punishments upon the petitioner including recovery of a certain sum of money. Be it recorded that the impugned order dated 11.10.2000 pertains to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was posted at Barhi. At paragraph 6 the Writ Petitioner has stated that he was posted at Barhi during the period 14.8.1988 to 29.2.1992. In other words, the order dated 11.10.2000 has been passed after almost ten to twelve years from the date when the petitioner was at Barhi. The petitioner has further specifically asserted at paragraph 19 that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and all that was issued was Annexure 1, i.e., a letter asking the petitioner to file an explanation. According to the petitioner, he filed an explanation vide Annexure 2 on 19,6.1994 and thereafter nothing happened and the Respondents, all of a sudden, passed the impugned order.
6. Thus from a perusal of the pleading made, it is, therefore, apparent that neither any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any statutory compliance made as indicated by this Court by order dated 8.1.2001, In fact what is apparent in
this case is that the rules of natural justice and equity were very conveniently put on the shelves.
7. In the backdrop of the pleadings made, this Court is therefore satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.10.2000 is set aside the quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.